Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 19 March 2012

March 19

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Categories by location and time

Category:Categories by location and time - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With a small number of entries I'm not sure how useful this category is. It has been around for over a year with only 3 entries. While I think I understand why it could have been created, I'm not sure that it is serving a real navigation need. So I'll see where the discussion goes and would not be hurt by a rename, merge or keep outcome. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. As category creator I would have appreciated a heads-up by {{cfd-notify}} on my talk page. I created it to connect different schemes and to encourage uniformity when new sub-structures are created. Also, by making sure all existing structures that are categorized by the same scheme are linked at the top level this will assist in understanding and serve as reference whenever these structures are discussed, such as at CfDs. __meco (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Having time in the title is ambiguous. If you look at the subcategories, time equates to decades and centuries. So this is generally a parent category for categories by decades and centuries that also have some association with a place. I'm still struggling to see how this is useful for navigation. It seems more like a category to group like named categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 10:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Bedlingtonians

Propose renaming Category:Old Bedlingtonians to Category:People educated at Bedlington Grammar School

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) to clarify the purpose of the category as being for the alumni of a school rather than goodness known what.

The proposed new name fits the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in England. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom to match the developing or—dare I say it?—established format that has been agreed to by consensus. Good Ol’factory 08:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nomination. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, this one is based on the name used by the group of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present name is correct and should be left as it is. Until very recently, almost all of the former pupils categories for English schools also took the "Old Fooian" form. Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  It is wrong to say that "the only purpose of a category is to categorize". Per Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Misplaced Pages articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If the name is obscure or ambiguous jargon, like these, the ability of readers to "quickly find sets of articles" is unnecessarily and avoidably impeded.

  Moonraker claims that the categories are "based on a name". As in the previous discussions where he made that claim, it is not true. These categories are based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the proposed new name explains that fact more clearly.

  It is also wrong to say that "the present name is correct". It is not a WP:Commonname, and per WP:NDESC, a descriptive format may be used.

  Moonraker is is also wrong to say that "Until very recently, almost all of the former pupils categories for English schools also took the "Old Fooian" form". The list as of Feb 2011 shows that about half of them took that format, because they were created with those titles and there was no consensus either to keep them or to change them. Since then there has been 1) a consensus to standardise on "people educated at" for the non-Fooian categories, and 2) a consensus in at least 48 separate CfD discussions to rename nearly 150 "old Fooian" categories to "people educated at". Moonraker apparently wants us to disregard the consensus at 48 separate discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nomination. It would be nice to see a valid rationale for keeping, rather than a trotting-out of a defence that has proved inadequate time and again. Opposers need to show that 'Old Bedlingtonian' is used outside the (rather small) circle of Bedlingtonians, past and present. Where is a source stating that Bobby Charlton is an "Old Bedlingtonian"? John Hall (businessman)? Where is a source that these people are called 'Old Bedlingtonians' even amongst themselves? Oculi (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• REname -- While the meaning obviously refers to a school at Bedlington, it is (or was) not a sufficiently important school to merit an "old boys" type category. This should be reserved for the most prominent public schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: While there is consensus to rename, relisted to determine the correct school name (not discussed), since there seem to be several names, and further discussion to ascertain consensus on whether the two members should even be part of this category.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 10:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Both Charlton and Hall went to the school - sources from the Independent Football: Great days of a good knight (Charlton) & Sir John Hall's zeal is opening up the North-east frontier. (Note both articles are from the 1990s.) The question is not so much their attendance as whether anyone beyond OBs & the school ever actually use the term "Old Bedlington" for them. Like a number of schools Bedlington has had multiple names, largely due to changes in the structure of education that saw the Tripartite System introduced and then phased out about a generation later that meant the names no longer did what they said on the tin. I guess the modern school name is best so Category:People educated at Bedlington Community High School - for some reason a number of the schools categories were created around historic rather than current names. Most of the ones that actually used a school name in the title have since been renamed to the current school name, mainly through CFD Speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Current directors of Royal Bank of Canada

Propose merging Category:Current directors of Royal Bank of Canada to Category:Directors of Royal Bank of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We generally don't divide occupational categories into "current" vs. "former" categories. These can be upmerged to the timeless Category:Directors of Royal Bank of Canada, which can contain current and former directors. Good Ol’factory 08:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- Most current/former categories were merged some time back. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Albums by recording artist and cover artist

Category:Albums by recording artist and cover artist - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Consider this a test case for the sole subcategory: Category:King Crimson album covers by P. J. Crook. That was nominated for deletion (by me) with no consensus. As I argued there, this is a trivial intersection and really serves no purpose for navigation. What does everyone else think of this as a scheme? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. These types of categories seem way too specific. Only the categories for albums by recording artist and albums by cover artist need to exist, without the extra-specific spawn thereof. In all or most of the categories for albums by recording and cover artist, there would be few articles anyways. The two categories by themselves would work fine. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 07:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Besides Crook & King Crimson, Roger Dean (artist) and Yes (band) form a notable collaboration, which is documented with an in-line quotation from Yes guitarist Steve Howe in the Roger Dean article, as noted by Andy Dingley earlier. The collaboration between Yes and Dean forms a second subcategory of this category. Furthermore, in the discussion of the category "King Crimson album covers by P J Crook,
  • editor Andy Dingley explained that, even in the genre of progressive rock, there were other important examples of collaborations between musical and visual artists.
  • This category was proposed as an idea whose time had come also by editor Mercurywoodrose.

Categorizer Koafv/Justin should consider reviewing WP:POINT as well as reading comments in earlier discussions, to avoid further waisting my and Andy's time, which is much more valuable than his, by any measure.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• But simplify to "Albums by recording and cover artists".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There may be an argument for a category,'album covers by P J Crook,' (which may or may not result in the same entries) but to intersect with the artist as a category scheme would create unnecessary category clutter. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as above. Yes, in almost every case this would be a one-member intersection of no real interest. However in a few cases, there has been a long-term and distinct collaboration between two artists. Mostly these took place with older bands, back in the days of 12" vinyl when cover art mattered, hence the emphasis on prog rock. Apart from the prog rock though, one of the best-known would be Joy Division / New Order and Peter Saville. If these were collaborations between singers and song-writers, or between two visual artists, we'd recognise them. We should recognise this cross-discipline collaboration too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete – there is no need to keep forming these endless unduly specific category intersections. (And we don't categorise singers by song-writer, or visual artist by other visual artist.) The best way to recognise cross-discipline collaboration would be via an article on (say) 'King Crimson album covers by P J Crook' (or Pamela June Crook). Oculi (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Quite. If album cover artist/recording artist is so distinctive, as claimed, then there is a very good reason for an article which a category intersection cannot satisfy. What we really need to stop is a category scheme that has 100s of single entry categories which the present name would lead to. i.e Beatles/Blake, Stones/Warhol, each a notable cover but a category would be so pointless. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  WP policies already discourage forming categories that cannot be populated.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Response. Oh I wish that were really true. However, WP:OC#NARROW specifically says, If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article. Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list. Even worse, an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful.

In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories. which pretty much sums up why these categories should be deleted. Even if they survive I would point out they are misleadingly named.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• "it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article." Please stop imputing strawmen to us, and start addressing our responses. Again, Yes and King Crimson have large numbers of albums, and so these notable and already documented subcategories by notable artists are useful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• "these endless unduly specific category intersections"

This is not merely an intersection category. The thesis is that the intersection of these topic areas is sufficiently notable to justify an article upon the subject "King Crimson album covers by P J Crook", even if we haven't yet written that article, or would more likely write it as a section with the P J Crook article. The category is merely a convenient navigational grouping related to such a topic.

For the Rolling Stones' album Sticky Fingers we have an intersection between a notable band and Warhol, a notable artist. There's probably notable scope to write an article on that collaboration alone. However this was (AFAIK) their only collaboration. Even though there will be source material to write on that single cover, there's nothing to support "their collaboration" beyond that. That really would be a single intersection and so we should avoid it. However no-one is calling for those.

The case of interest here are covers like Roger Dean's for Yes, where there was a long-term collaboration with specific themes developed over time. For that case at least, we really ought to have a stand-alone article on it. And if you don't know who any of these people were, ask your Dad. Or even your Grandad. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete – If the collaboration is notable, it can be discussed in the relevant article(s). Implying the same through this kind of categorization provides no extra value to Misplaced Pages users. If the file names are "clear and descriptive" – e.g. "King Crimson - The Power to Believe (cover art by P J Crook).jpg" – I can find the intersection in either category. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  Your argument implies that no (clear and descriptive) categories' intersections should be categories, so please clarify what you would like to intend. As explained in the previous discussion (which you should have read), King Crimson has 100 or so albums, so searching for P J Crook's art wastes readers' time. The size of the KC discography motivates having a few subcategories for albums, per the usual size-heuristics of WP categorization.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  Properly named files, like my example, can obviate the need for further subcategorization, and in this case they would. If it's too difficult to use a web browser to highlight "P J Crook" in the King Crimson category, it's quite easy to find files that begin with "King Crimson" in the P J Crook category, for example. Then again, you've lately been in the business of renaming files to make them less descriptive (e.g. "King Crimson - Three of a Perfect Pair.jpg" --> "Three of a Perfect Pair.jpg"). Your file mover rights ought to be revoked for that. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  @Two-Hearted River,

Your threat is not supported by WP policy at Misplaced Pages:File names. Do you have a source?

I made the names consistent, so that they can be read in alphabetical order in the category. It may be useful to add ", King Crimson album" to the end of the album names, where appropriate. This second descriptor was missing from many of the albums.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving a file to a less descriptive name, when it was not excessively long to begin with, violates the spirit of WP:IFN. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you were talking out of your arse, again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Upmerging Maccabiah Games cricketers

Propose upmerging

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers by country

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of Australia

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of Great Britain‎

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of India‎

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of South Africa

Category:Cricketers at the Maccabiah Games by year

Category:Cricketers at the 1997 Maccabiah Games

Category:Cricketers at the 2005 Maccabiah Games

Category:Cricketers at the 2009 Maccabiah Games‎

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing all these categories be upmerged into Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers because they are simply too few notable cricketers who have played at the Maccabiah Games for them to be divided up by nationality or when they played. Most of these categories have one or two members, the most is five. If they are all upmerged, I believe Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers would hold a total of nine articles, hardly an impossibility to navigate. P.S. – I've never proposed an upmerge before so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Jenks24 (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- I have grave doubts as to whether these categories should exist at all. They appear to be "Performance by performer" categories, which we do not allow for the film/theatre/TV. I do not see why they should be allowed for sports. I would make an exception for the Olympic Games. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Parent abduction

Category:Parent abduction - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one entry. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Parental child abduction - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, even more so since the one subcat should not be in it. Category:Child abduction and the parent(!) article covers the topic -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Two similar nominations amalgamated. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge both to Category:Child abduction. Abduction by a non-custodial parent is a significant problem, particualrly as different countries take different views of how custody should be awarded. However, the children abducted will rarely be notable. The confidentiality of child proceedings in UK measn it is often only reported here, if the judge allows that. Nevertheless, the categories are too small to warrant their separate existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Novels about rape and revenge

Category:Novels about rape and revenge - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. We cannot categorize novels according to every pair of topics they contain. LeSnail (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Upmerge per nom, not delete. I have real doubts as to the coherence and objectivity of all the "works about" tree, but insofar as it is kept, the nom is right that combining pairs of topics is a recipe for chaos. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete -- Apparnetly emptied out of process -- accordingly delete and upmerge come to the same thing. Whatever the situation we do not need this. It is an unnecssary intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Matrices

Propose renaming Category:Matrices to Category:Matrices (mathematics)

Nominator's rationale: Main page is at Matrix (mathematics). LeSnail (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there is a good reason for using Category:Matrices for something else. Category:Matrices (mathematics) is unnecessarily long otherwise. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Matrix is highly ambiguous, and so too is the plural "Matrices". I don't find the proposed name too long: I've seen much longer category names that are still acceptable. Good Ol’factory 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Highly ambiguous" seems to be a bit overstated. Of the first 30 google hits I get for "matrices", 29 refer to the mathematical meaning and 1 (www.matrices.net) to a blog of which it is not clear where the name comes from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If the name isn't highly ambiguous, then why is the main page disambiguated? LeSnail (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rationale is based on busy-work, not any actual need. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What does this mean? Why is there no need to be non-ambiguous? Good Ol’factory 08:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It is well established that we do not disambiguate article names, however ambiguous in theory, until there is a practical need to disambiguate two or more actual article titles. If there was another "matrix" category we wouldn't be having a contentious discussion. The category can be defined by text on the category page, which is the way of clarifying matters to the small number of readers who actually find Category:Matrices on a page and wonder about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support clearly ambiguous per Good OlFactory. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• REname to match Matrix (mathematics), but purge of any other kind of matrix, if necessary creating further categories for other kinds. Matrix is a disambiguation article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is stupid even for this place, apparently a transcription for a lunatics' asylum on some possible world.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being called a lunatic. LeSnail (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename to match Matrix (mathematics); and rename any other categories where the implicit main article is a dab page. Oculi (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't such a sweeping conclusion be backed up by at least some discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Category names, leading to the area being mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Category names? The principle doesn't seem to have been established. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. What problem is the move supposed to solve? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Charles Matthews. Sasha (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)