Speedway

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 28

< February 27 February 29 >

February 28

Category:Films banned in India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films banned in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Does not form part of a series and is better served by List of banned films in India (a new article which I will expand). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male hostages in Iraq

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to . Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Male hostages in Iraq ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced it's necessary to subdivide Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq by gender. I can see an argument for keeping Category:Female hostages in Iraq as a subcat of Category:Women in the Iraq War, which is why I haven't nominated that one; but a specific category for male hostages seems redundant when the vast majority of hostages in Iraq have been male. Robofish (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rome Masters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rome Masters to Category:Italian Open (tennis)
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Italian Open (tennis). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Madrid Masters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Madrid Masters to Category:Madrid Open (tennis)
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Madrid Open (tennis). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hamburg Masters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hamburg Masters to Category:German Open Tennis Championships
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is German Open Tennis Championships. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canada Masters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canada Masters to Category:Rogers Cup (tennis) Category:Canadian Open (tennis)
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Rogers Cup (tennis) Canadian Open (tennis). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Some Townian Old Fooians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
These categories all have two further problems.
The first problem is that they all use a demonym for an English town. The use of such demonyms as category names for people from those towns is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006.
So a reader who encounters these categories will be confronted with a rarely-used term, which on further examination they may recognise as being for people from a particular town. Even if the reader leaps those two hurdles, and then guesses that it refers to alumni of a school, they still face a further hurdle, of either ambiguity or obscurity:
Obscure (the "Fooian" in "Old Fooian" may refer to other topics)
Ambiguous (the "Fooian" in "Old Fooian" may refer to other topics)
Ambiguous with other schools
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (townian old fooians)
Actually it was a point first made by Flying Fische in the protracted cfd a year ago. I find your comment very exaggerated. The point is merely that a name is a name, and so long as it is correct, it does not need to give information, that is not the function of a category. Moonraker (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moonraker, do you agree that a category name should aim to guide the reader about what the category contains? I do hope you do, because otherwise we might as well use random numbers for category titles.— BrownHairedGirl (10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)[reply]
Broadly, no. Many category names are no more than names. The category is not "about" anything, it is essentially a list. The name of the list is sometimes descriptive, sometimes not. The more descriptive you want it to be, the longer it will need to be. Moonraker (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting weird. Do you not want the reader to know what's in the list before they open it up? Why not just name all categories with a terse hexadecimal number? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, by using words which have some meaning; but there is hardly a word in the English language (or, indeed, a name) which has a simple and precise meaning, all words and names have advantages and disadvantages. Moonraker (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, can you explain exactly what the advantages are which you believe are offered to the reader by an "old Fooian" term over a descriptive one? The "old Fooian" term should be explained in the category page, so using the Fooian term as the name conveys no extra information. Why should it be on the label? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(interstitial comment). The ensuing comments since my first comment have made me think this is an even stranger approach than I first supposed by Moonraker's first statement. I don't mean to belittle by saying that; it's just an approach that I find unique or unusual and not one that I remember having heard advanced in this way before. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anton Corbijn

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anton Corbijn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Just categorizes album covers. No discrimination against making Category:Albums with covers by Anton Corbijn. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Compositions by Eef van Breen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Compositions by Eef van Breen
Nominator's rationale: This composer (whose article should probably be AfD'd) has composed only one notable work, so I do not think this category will ever have more than one member. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Counts of Louvain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: not renamed. Clear consensus to follow the naming of the master article. A category redirect will be created. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Counts of Louvain to Category:Counts of Leuven
Nominator's rationale: The spelling is Leuven, not Louvain. M'encarta (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Models from Tokyo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Japanese models. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Models from Tokyo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. The parent category Category:Japanese models is quite small and doesn't need to be subcategorized. The intersection is not defining in any case. Pichpich (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_28