Category:Portal box templates using obsolete parameters
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It was always supposed to be a temporary category about two years ago! Possibly due to a template merge? I have cleaned up the pages that where in it that needed obsolete parameters removed. The remaining pages in the category are of no consequence or do not belong in it (because they have valid parameters). See also
Template_talk:Portal#Obsolete_parameters. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
23:45, 20 April 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:Santiago, Chile
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.
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent article,
Santiago, which has uncontroversially been the primary topic since mid-2010. I put this up at CFDS, but there were concerns that a category that had been renamed at CfD shouldn't go through CFDS, even though the rationale for renaming last time was to match the parent article (at the time at "Santiago, Chile"). The subcats are currently a mish-mash of "Santiago" and "Santiago, Chile", so whatever the result here is it should apply to the subcats as well.
Jenks24 (
talk)
16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I did notice that, but the only argument at that CfD to use "Santiago, Chile" was because that's what the article was titled. The article has been stable at simply "Santiago" since mid-2010 now, so I didn't think a full discussion would be necessary.
Jenks24 (
talk)
00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename both per nominator. I was the objector to the speedy proposal, but my objection was procedural, and I am happy to support the renaming unless someone offers persuasive reasons to oppose. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree with you. The Chilean city is the country's capital city and the largest city in the country with a population of 7 million. The Cuban city is not a capital and only has a population of 400,000. I think the Chilean city is far more prominent and that when a reader goes to
Category:Santiago they would expect it to it to be about the Chilean city, e.g. the first page of my Google search for "Santiago" gives only results for the Chilean city.
Jenks24 (
talk)
19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. I've no problem with matching the category name to the article name, despite the potential ambiguity. For every case where this has not been done (Birmingham, etc.) there are half a dozen cases where it is done despite potential ambiguity (Paris, London, etc.).
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I don't agree that this is similar to the Birmingham issue. Santiago is a capital city and has a metro population of 7 mil, while the Cuban Santiago is not a capital and has a population of only 400,000. Compare this to the Birmingham precedent, where the English Birmingham has a metro population of 3.5 mil and Birmingham, Alabama has a metro population of 1 million (and neither are capitals). That said, if the consensus is disambiguate, I agree with you and Mayumashu that we should use "Santiago de Chile".
Jenks24 (
talk)
11:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support If you don't like the amgiguity the article name creates (and I don't either), take it up in the article space. Although I'm convinced the naming is vague, I don't see how it's uniquely vague to the category space.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Per the Birmingham example, categories can and are named differently from articlespace, especially in cases of ambiguity, where more primarity is needed for category names than article names.
70.49.124.225 (
talk)
09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. A category and its head article never need to be located at different levels of disambiguation from each other — if there's ever a compelling reason to do so, then that's not a sign that the standard practice of matching a category to the name of its primary article needs to be deviated from; it's a sign that one thing or the other is at an incorrect level of disambiguation and needs to be revisited. The need to match the two is still absolute and non-negotiable — you're certainly free to put forward an alternate proposal that the article be redisambiguated to match the category name instead if you wish, but either way the names must match up at the same disambiguation level, with no exceptions ever.
Birmingham is a problem that needs fixing, not an example to emulate.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Considering the past practice of CFD, that's certainly a different viewpoint, since many times in the past, CFD has taken the opposite view, that the category should be named at a more disambiguated form, because categories are not articles, and have different concerns than articles.
70.49.124.225 (
talk)
11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Then CFD is wrong. Categories do not have different concerns than articles do when it comes to naming; if an article and its associated category can't be at the same level of disambiguation at each other, then that's a sign that one of them is sitting at an incorrect level of disambiguation, not a sign that categories and articles don't correctly belong at the same names as each other.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose (changing my !vote). "Santiago" is not as extreme a case of ambiguity as the two Birminghams, but nonetheless it is a case of ambiguity between two cities. Using the ambiguous name creates a risk of miscategorisation, and fixing that requires a lot of manual patrolling which doesn't always happen. Bearcat's attempt to draw an "absolute and non-negotiable" line doesn't fit with Wikipedia's general principle that policies and guidelines permit the occasional exception,
Wikipedia:Category names#General_conventions doesn't attempt to create an absolute rule; it just says they should "normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". That reflects the practice in recent years, where a disambiguator is sometimes added to a category name in situations like this. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Exceptions need to have compelling reasons behind them; the fact that exceptions are allowable doesn't mean we can just go around making exceptions willy-nilly. If
Santiago is sufficiently unambiguous to be the title of the article about the place in Chile, then it's sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name; if
Birmingham is not sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name in its case, then it's not sufficiently unambiguous to be the article title either. (The British wikicontingent has always relied a little too strongly on the "but ours had the name first" argument, even in some cases where a later-named place had clearly surpassed the actual real-world notability of the first one, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.) It's not good enough to say that we should make an exception just because Wikipedia rules allow for the existence of exceptions; there has to be a specific and compelling reason why this situation is a special case that needs an exception.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the discussion and the fact that Santiago is ambiguous. Categories have a problem with bad population since ambiguous named ones can all too easily receive misplaced articles which are not easy to detect. There is no requirement that categories and articles share an identical name. Having said that, it is an extremely desirable trait. So when we need to have an unambiguous category name that is the correct solution. If that causes a move of the article as well, then we don't have a problem. The fact that certain groups may protect some badly named articles is not a reason to not act correctly here.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:51, 29 April 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:Booker Prize
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.
Oppose both for anachronistic reasons. Most of these writers have never won the "Man Booker Prize" since it has only been in existence for about 8 years. Many of them had died before the "Man Booker Prize" even came into existence. Maybe
Man Booker Prize should be moved to
Booker Prize as well since it has been known as this throughout its existence and is still commonly known as this today? Note that Wikipedia has
Mercury Prize, not
Barclaycard Mercury Prize, and
FA Cup, not
FA Cup with Budweiser as these, also English-based, events are currently known but have not been known throughout their history.
I sort of agree with the above. The name has been stable for a few years but it's still a sponsorship so it's inherently volatile. Moving an article as sponsorship shifts might make sense since it's likely to become the common search term but I prefer keeping the category at a title which is not era-dependent. Creating a category redirect might make sense (and might also make everyone happy).
Pichpich (
talk)
23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, to avoid anachronistic categorisation. Keep winners category, because this is one of the major prizes in literary fiction, and a win is definitely a defining characteristic of its winners. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose the Man thing. Simply change them / keep them as
Booker Prize,
Category:Booker Prize and
Category:Booker Prize winners. With regard to the title, what about the above examples of Mercury Prize and FA Cup? Most of the people in the category have never won the Man Booker Prize because it did not exist untila few years ago. But it has been
commonly known as the Booker Prize throughout its existence (note that it is not now called the Man Group Prize and that the "Booker" bit is retained.) The example given by the nominator of
Category:Whitbread Awards >
Category:Costa Book Awards does not apply to the Booker Prize - it is not now known as the Costa Whitbread Award, is it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.40.108.34 (
talk)
20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The similarity of "Booker" and "Book" has no doubt encouraged the retention of the name long after Booker McConnell ceased to be the sponsor. I suppose this is an imprtant enough award for us to allow an award winners category to be retained.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:46, 23 April 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:Portal box templates using obsolete parameters
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It was always supposed to be a temporary category about two years ago! Possibly due to a template merge? I have cleaned up the pages that where in it that needed obsolete parameters removed. The remaining pages in the category are of no consequence or do not belong in it (because they have valid parameters). See also
Template_talk:Portal#Obsolete_parameters. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
23:45, 20 April 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:Santiago, Chile
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.
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent article,
Santiago, which has uncontroversially been the primary topic since mid-2010. I put this up at CFDS, but there were concerns that a category that had been renamed at CfD shouldn't go through CFDS, even though the rationale for renaming last time was to match the parent article (at the time at "Santiago, Chile"). The subcats are currently a mish-mash of "Santiago" and "Santiago, Chile", so whatever the result here is it should apply to the subcats as well.
Jenks24 (
talk)
16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I did notice that, but the only argument at that CfD to use "Santiago, Chile" was because that's what the article was titled. The article has been stable at simply "Santiago" since mid-2010 now, so I didn't think a full discussion would be necessary.
Jenks24 (
talk)
00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename both per nominator. I was the objector to the speedy proposal, but my objection was procedural, and I am happy to support the renaming unless someone offers persuasive reasons to oppose. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I agree with you. The Chilean city is the country's capital city and the largest city in the country with a population of 7 million. The Cuban city is not a capital and only has a population of 400,000. I think the Chilean city is far more prominent and that when a reader goes to
Category:Santiago they would expect it to it to be about the Chilean city, e.g. the first page of my Google search for "Santiago" gives only results for the Chilean city.
Jenks24 (
talk)
19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. I've no problem with matching the category name to the article name, despite the potential ambiguity. For every case where this has not been done (Birmingham, etc.) there are half a dozen cases where it is done despite potential ambiguity (Paris, London, etc.).
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I don't agree that this is similar to the Birmingham issue. Santiago is a capital city and has a metro population of 7 mil, while the Cuban Santiago is not a capital and has a population of only 400,000. Compare this to the Birmingham precedent, where the English Birmingham has a metro population of 3.5 mil and Birmingham, Alabama has a metro population of 1 million (and neither are capitals). That said, if the consensus is disambiguate, I agree with you and Mayumashu that we should use "Santiago de Chile".
Jenks24 (
talk)
11:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Support If you don't like the amgiguity the article name creates (and I don't either), take it up in the article space. Although I'm convinced the naming is vague, I don't see how it's uniquely vague to the category space.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Per the Birmingham example, categories can and are named differently from articlespace, especially in cases of ambiguity, where more primarity is needed for category names than article names.
70.49.124.225 (
talk)
09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. A category and its head article never need to be located at different levels of disambiguation from each other — if there's ever a compelling reason to do so, then that's not a sign that the standard practice of matching a category to the name of its primary article needs to be deviated from; it's a sign that one thing or the other is at an incorrect level of disambiguation and needs to be revisited. The need to match the two is still absolute and non-negotiable — you're certainly free to put forward an alternate proposal that the article be redisambiguated to match the category name instead if you wish, but either way the names must match up at the same disambiguation level, with no exceptions ever.
Birmingham is a problem that needs fixing, not an example to emulate.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Considering the past practice of CFD, that's certainly a different viewpoint, since many times in the past, CFD has taken the opposite view, that the category should be named at a more disambiguated form, because categories are not articles, and have different concerns than articles.
70.49.124.225 (
talk)
11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Then CFD is wrong. Categories do not have different concerns than articles do when it comes to naming; if an article and its associated category can't be at the same level of disambiguation at each other, then that's a sign that one of them is sitting at an incorrect level of disambiguation, not a sign that categories and articles don't correctly belong at the same names as each other.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose (changing my !vote). "Santiago" is not as extreme a case of ambiguity as the two Birminghams, but nonetheless it is a case of ambiguity between two cities. Using the ambiguous name creates a risk of miscategorisation, and fixing that requires a lot of manual patrolling which doesn't always happen. Bearcat's attempt to draw an "absolute and non-negotiable" line doesn't fit with Wikipedia's general principle that policies and guidelines permit the occasional exception,
Wikipedia:Category names#General_conventions doesn't attempt to create an absolute rule; it just says they should "normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". That reflects the practice in recent years, where a disambiguator is sometimes added to a category name in situations like this. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Exceptions need to have compelling reasons behind them; the fact that exceptions are allowable doesn't mean we can just go around making exceptions willy-nilly. If
Santiago is sufficiently unambiguous to be the title of the article about the place in Chile, then it's sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name; if
Birmingham is not sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name in its case, then it's not sufficiently unambiguous to be the article title either. (The British wikicontingent has always relied a little too strongly on the "but ours had the name first" argument, even in some cases where a later-named place had clearly surpassed the actual real-world notability of the first one, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.) It's not good enough to say that we should make an exception just because Wikipedia rules allow for the existence of exceptions; there has to be a specific and compelling reason why this situation is a special case that needs an exception.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the discussion and the fact that Santiago is ambiguous. Categories have a problem with bad population since ambiguous named ones can all too easily receive misplaced articles which are not easy to detect. There is no requirement that categories and articles share an identical name. Having said that, it is an extremely desirable trait. So when we need to have an unambiguous category name that is the correct solution. If that causes a move of the article as well, then we don't have a problem. The fact that certain groups may protect some badly named articles is not a reason to not act correctly here.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:51, 29 April 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:Booker Prize
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.
Oppose both for anachronistic reasons. Most of these writers have never won the "Man Booker Prize" since it has only been in existence for about 8 years. Many of them had died before the "Man Booker Prize" even came into existence. Maybe
Man Booker Prize should be moved to
Booker Prize as well since it has been known as this throughout its existence and is still commonly known as this today? Note that Wikipedia has
Mercury Prize, not
Barclaycard Mercury Prize, and
FA Cup, not
FA Cup with Budweiser as these, also English-based, events are currently known but have not been known throughout their history.
I sort of agree with the above. The name has been stable for a few years but it's still a sponsorship so it's inherently volatile. Moving an article as sponsorship shifts might make sense since it's likely to become the common search term but I prefer keeping the category at a title which is not era-dependent. Creating a category redirect might make sense (and might also make everyone happy).
Pichpich (
talk)
23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, to avoid anachronistic categorisation. Keep winners category, because this is one of the major prizes in literary fiction, and a win is definitely a defining characteristic of its winners. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose the Man thing. Simply change them / keep them as
Booker Prize,
Category:Booker Prize and
Category:Booker Prize winners. With regard to the title, what about the above examples of Mercury Prize and FA Cup? Most of the people in the category have never won the Man Booker Prize because it did not exist untila few years ago. But it has been
commonly known as the Booker Prize throughout its existence (note that it is not now called the Man Group Prize and that the "Booker" bit is retained.) The example given by the nominator of
Category:Whitbread Awards >
Category:Costa Book Awards does not apply to the Booker Prize - it is not now known as the Costa Whitbread Award, is it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.40.108.34 (
talk)
20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The similarity of "Booker" and "Book" has no doubt encouraged the retention of the name long after Booker McConnell ceased to be the sponsor. I suppose this is an imprtant enough award for us to allow an award winners category to be retained.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:46, 23 April 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.