Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

Category:Waheed Murad

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. MER-C 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The film articles in this category should be purged, we do not categorize films by the actors in them. That just leaves the articles List of Waheed Murad songs, Rani (actress) and Waheed Murad filmography, which I contend does not justify having a category. Tassedethe ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2015 (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:Contemporary Italian history

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it is roughly about the 19th and 20th century which is considered to be "modern" history rather than "contemporary" history (see also tree of Category:Modern history by country). Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree on Contemporary history in particular, in fact I'm not sure if this tree is helpful at all. With Modern history it is clearer, this is quite consistently categorizing the 19th, 20th and 21st century together. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (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:Wolverhampton Council elections

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 as nominated, for consistency reasons, without prejudice against a wider rename nomination to the format of Category:Foocity council elections. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Wolverhampton City Council elections. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I pick out Category:Solihull Council elections and see that they are all metropolitan borough elections, so I would query the reliability of any names in this tree. Oculi ( talk) 12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Oculi:There are a handful of councils whose categories are still incorrectly named (almost all MBCs), which I was slowly correcting using the CSD process until this one was blocked. See Category:District council elections in England for further (>200) examples. Number 5 7 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
That's the danger of using CSD for a big process. Much better to start by testing consensus, rather than discovering much further down the track that consensus is not what you assumed it might be. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Consensus was developed by several discussions with editors who work on local election articles as to how the incorrect titles could be remedied. Number 5 7 14:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Any links to the CFDs? Because that is where consensus is formed on category names. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
No, there were no CFDs, it was an organic process of constructive discussions on the topic. But I strongly disagree with your claim about where consensus is formed. Category names are supposed to reflect article names, so in many cases, CFDs are entirely irrelevant to what the consensus is. Number 5 7 14:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Wrong on both counts.
Private discussions do not create a broader consensus -- such discusisons are not flagged up for the attention of other editors.
Category names reflect article names for some types of categories. For many many others, a standardised descriptive format is used. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
No, not wrong at all, otherwise WP:C2D wouldn't exist. Number 5 7 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, very wrong. Please read WP:C2D, rather than just namechecking it. It is for topic categories, but this is a set category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I think we both need to read it, as you're also using WP:C2D to rename set categories! Number 5 7 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I am using it for homogeneous sets, unambiguously relating to the same entity. It's a stretch of C2D which seems to be regularly accepted, but you are trying to use it for diverse sets. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
See my final comment re wikilawyering. Number 5 7 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
This is all about consensus, not wikilawyering. Isn't the lack of support for your view hinting to you that just perhaps this might not be as back-and-white as you would like it to be?
As I noted below, if you don't understand the distinction between the types of category, then oppose those speedy noms and I will bring them to CFD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
As noted below, it turns out there was a CfD on this type of renaming, and it was approved without opposition. Also worth noting the editor who started that discussion! Number 5 7 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
C'mon, that hardly supports your argument. That category only contained articles about "Bristol City Council" so wasn't controversial in any way. Sionk ( talk) 21:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
And this category only contains articles about Wolverhampton City Council (remember, it's the same organisation). Number 5 7 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
If articles start to appear on pre-1974 Bristol elections, we'll need to revisit the categorsiation of that city's elections. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral -- Wolverhampton became a city about 15 years ago, but its extent is the same as the previous MBC, which was the same as the preceding County Borough. I am not sure if the county borough was expanded by the incorporation of adjoining urban districts in 1965 reforms. I see no reason in principle why they should not all be in the same category, with the changes in name being covered in a headnote. That is what we do for alumni categories of renamed or merged colleges, sometimes with slightly odd results. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename instead to Category:Wolverhampton council elections, per Oculi's proposal. I suppose in effect this is an "Oppose" to the current rename proposal. These are elections in the city of Wolverhampton (though a city only since 2000). The category also includes elections that weren't to a city council. Sionk ( talk) 00:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Sionk: It is exactly the same council as before, just renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Number 5 7 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • A one-size-fits-all approach is unnecessary here. In this case the elections definitely weren't city council elections before 2000. It's not semantics, just pragmatic common sense. There's no preclusion to the category remaining in its existing higher level cats, of course. Sionk ( talk) 01:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • @ Sionk: But it is semantics. There is no such thing in the UK as a "city council", so thete have never been "city council elections" in Wolverhampton. Wolverhampon City Council is a metropolitan borough council that currently goes under the WCC name. Number 5 7 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It seems to me that there are two misunderstandings behind this nomination:
  1. That the formal title of the council is its WP:COMMONNAME. In practice, the common usage for most is "Foo Council" rather than using the full title listing the type of council, and many councils style themselves according that to that short common name. So in common usage, it's "Lambeth Council" ( http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/) rather than "Lambeth London Borough Council", and "Wakefield Council" ( http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/) rather than "Wakefield Metropolitan District Council".
  2. There is nothing wrong with using a descriptive title for the category (per WP:NDESC) rather than the formal name. See for example Category:Council elections in Southwark
  3. Many areas had previous councils before the current entities. The descriptive name allows the category to include elections to both the current council and to previous councils in the area. In the example of Southwark, it includes election to the current "Southwark London Borough Council", but also to the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey, and the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark.
User:Number 57's proposal is made in good faith after other similar moves, but I believe that this excessive precision is mistaken because it leaves no place for elections before the current councils were created. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Similarly, I believe BrownHairedGirl is mistaken in two of her three claims above:
  1. Regarding the claim that the category name "leaves no place for elections before the current councils were created"; the councils created in the early 1970s are successors to those of the late 19th century, and in places where excessive re-organisation did not take place (as is the case in London), are effectively the same organisation. This means there is no problem at all in having them in the same category. It is also worth noting that the article on Wolverhampton City Council covers the entire history of the various guises of the council all the way back to 1777.
  2. Regarding the common name issue (a) in this case the common name is Wolverhampton City Council; compare Wolverhampton Council (44,500 hits) with Wolverhampton City Council (224,000 hits), and (b) common name should not be an issue for category names – they should simply match the title of the contents, which was the rationale for the renaming presented by Armbrust.
Number 5 7 09:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. Many articles contain a history section which mentions their predecessors. That doesn't alter the fact that their predecessors were not the same body. What exactly is the purpose of unneccessarily creating these anachronisms? What problem is being solved?
  2. Your point about matching title to contents is exactly the one I have been trying to persuade you to see. In this case, the contents are not exclusively elections to Wolverhampton City Council; most of them are elections to Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council. So if the name is to reflect the contents, WMBC would be the title to use. Better, however, to use neutral descriptive terminology: Category:Wolverhampton council elections. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I've explained this already above: Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council and Wolverhampton City Council are the same organisation – the council was just renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Thus the contents are exclusively limited to elections to this single organisation (and this is also why I gave the example above about Manchester United players). Number 5 7 13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
There were council elections in Wolverhampton before 1974, which were to a separate body. What exactly is your problem with using an all-inclusive descriptive title as suggested by Oculi? That option is not open to the football club categories, which is why yoir analogy is misplaced. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
My problem is that we use the current name of the council to categorise elections for almost all local authorities in the UK, and it would be good to get some consistency on category naming. "Wolverhampton council elections" is a needlessly vague title that does not match the main article for the category. Number 5 7 14:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
That's a bit silly. You do a long series of moves outside the consensus-forming processes, and then claim that your unilateral actions have created a convention.
So I'll ask again: What exactly is your problem with using an all-inclusive descriptive title as suggested by Oculi? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
As noted above, there were several discussions about appropriate titles for council election articles, and categories are supposed to match these. My problem with the proposal of "Wolverhampton council elections" is that it's unnecessarily imprecise when we have the main topic located at Wolverhampton City Council elections. It's also just a terrible name generally; "Council elections in Wolverhampton" would be far better, but for the benefit of the discussion closer, I should note that I am strongly opposed to both. Number 5 7 14:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Surely you can do better than a vague wave to some discussions, somewhere, with no links?
One of the problems is your concern that '"Wolverhampton council elections" is unnecessarily imprecise'. See WP:PRECISION: when disambiguating, we don't go more precise than needed. Why in this case do you seek un-needed precision?
You say that you are "strongly opposed" to "Council elections in Wolverhampton". I get that, but is there any reason founded in policy or guidelines for your strong opposition, or is that just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I would have thought it was obvious by now given that I've repeatedly stated it, but my opposition to the alternatives is founded in the convention that the category title should match the main article title, which is why I took it to WP:CFDS in the first place. The IDONTLIKEIT claim is rather unnecessary, and just seems designed to delegitimise my opinion Number 5 7 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
As above, you failed to read WP:C2D. It refers to topic categories; this is a set category. -- BrownHairedGirl 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit that is true. However, the wording appears to be widely ignored by pretty much everyone, including yourself as you have several nominations at present for what are clearly set categories (e.g. Category:St. Anthony's F.C. players and Category:Films directed by John Mackenzie) using the same WP:C2D rationale. But anyway, the convention that categories should be named after their main article still exists for set categories (which you yourself are in the midst of proving), even if we are not allowed to use the speedy process to make the move. Number 5 7 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I am using it for homogeneous sets, unambiguously relating to the same entity. It's a stretch of C2D which seems to be regularly accepted, but the distinction which you refuse to acknowledge (no matter how many times it is pointed out to you) is that you are trying to use it for diverse sets which do not all fit under the same proper name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Regardless, they are still set categories, and I find your attitude incredibly hypocritical. I think as we're reduced to this level of wikilawyering, there's no point in continuing. For the final record, I don't believe the potential articles are too diverse to fit into a renamed category. Number 5 7 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)As BrownHairedGirl says, you made a unilateral decision about the name of the Wikipedia article (which you changed) and then using that to justify your argument that the current category "does not match the main article for the category" (your words above). The question of how precise a Wikipedia article or category name need to be is exactly the one which needs to concern us here. If necessary the article name can be changed back, or to something better. Sionk ( talk) 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Can I be quite clear here – this renaming/moving is not something unilaterally done by myself – it was being done by other editors in this topic area too; e.g. [1] [2]. [3] [4] Number 5 7 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Number 57: I see a distinction, but you refuse to recognise it. That's up to you ... but if you consider my use of C2D to be inappropriate, then pop along to WP:CFD and oppose my nominations there. Then we can have a full discussion about at CFD.
Your call. --BrownHairedGirl 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not about refusing to recognise something (implying deliberately being awkward), it's simply disagreeing that it exists. I could be a complete arse and oppose your use of C2D, but we all know that this is how C2D normally works; it's just sad that you would try and claim otherwise to try and prove a point. Number 5 7 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Indeed, you don't acknowledge its existence. So how come several other editors are independently disagreeing with you? Doesn't that suggest to you in any way that this case is a little different, even you don't see accept the significance of that difference? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Equally, how come several other editors are independently agreeing with me? It's not really a very reasonable question to ask when the debate is a 50/50 split. By the way, I had a look in the CfD archives to see if there had been any previous discussions about category renaming to match the "Foo City Council elections" titles, and it turns out there was. It's rather interesting to see who started that discussion ;) Number 5 7 20:18, 21 January 2016 (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:Sheffield Council elections

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Sheffield City Council elections. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:19, 24 December 2015 (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:Mandarin-language singers of China

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. While not requested here, deletion seems to the consensus here. I will add the note suggested but I don't consider it as part of the close for this discussion since Category:Mandarin-language singers had no notification for here so people are free to revise or revert that without DRV or anything about it. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Followup of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 13#Mandarin-language categories. The suggested merge was largely ignored because it was grouped with the renaming of six other categories.
Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 9#Category:Korean-language singers of South Korea, this category is redundant. — ξ xplicit 02:55, 24 December 2015 (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:ABC Persons of the Week

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EPONCAT ( WP:NONDEFINING} and the spirit of WP:PERFCAT
ABC World News Tonight runs a 3-minute feel-good profile of an inspirational person on Friday just before the weekend ( link). There is no main article on this subject, this isn't a competitive award, and none of the articles I looked at even mentioned this honor.- RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Doncram as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Television. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose deletion. I came to this topic area previously because of a previous AFD about a person/organization that had received the honor. In the course of that AFD, I figured out that ABC Person of the Week (then and currently a redlink) appears to be a valid Wikipedia article topic. See the AFD. I drafted Draft:ABC Person of the Week but did not develop it very far, and I have not yet submitted it for mainspace. For the lesser-known persons named by ABC Person of the Week, the honor is important and is worth mentioning in their articles. For others who are already prominent (e.g. Caroline Kennedy), the honor may be relatively unimportant and need not be mentioned in their articles. I was thinking it would be reasonable to apply the category to articles for all persons identified (with citations) in the list at ABC Person of the Week article, although I may have been wrong about that. Anyhow anywhere the category would appear, a reader should be able to get to article itself, which will appear first in the category. I see that the CFD nomination is in good faith given that the article is only in draft-space. But the list and corresponding category are parts of a work-in-progress, in effect, where I believe there is overall notability. It is appropriate for the category to complement the list; see wp:CLT. I should get back to developing this a bit, and/or others could help out. -- do ncr am 03:42, 24 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_24&oldid=1090392083"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

Category:Waheed Murad

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. MER-C 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The film articles in this category should be purged, we do not categorize films by the actors in them. That just leaves the articles List of Waheed Murad songs, Rani (actress) and Waheed Murad filmography, which I contend does not justify having a category. Tassedethe ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2015 (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:Contemporary Italian history

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it is roughly about the 19th and 20th century which is considered to be "modern" history rather than "contemporary" history (see also tree of Category:Modern history by country). Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree on Contemporary history in particular, in fact I'm not sure if this tree is helpful at all. With Modern history it is clearer, this is quite consistently categorizing the 19th, 20th and 21st century together. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (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:Wolverhampton Council elections

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 as nominated, for consistency reasons, without prejudice against a wider rename nomination to the format of Category:Foocity council elections. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Wolverhampton City Council elections. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I pick out Category:Solihull Council elections and see that they are all metropolitan borough elections, so I would query the reliability of any names in this tree. Oculi ( talk) 12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Oculi:There are a handful of councils whose categories are still incorrectly named (almost all MBCs), which I was slowly correcting using the CSD process until this one was blocked. See Category:District council elections in England for further (>200) examples. Number 5 7 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
That's the danger of using CSD for a big process. Much better to start by testing consensus, rather than discovering much further down the track that consensus is not what you assumed it might be. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Consensus was developed by several discussions with editors who work on local election articles as to how the incorrect titles could be remedied. Number 5 7 14:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Any links to the CFDs? Because that is where consensus is formed on category names. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
No, there were no CFDs, it was an organic process of constructive discussions on the topic. But I strongly disagree with your claim about where consensus is formed. Category names are supposed to reflect article names, so in many cases, CFDs are entirely irrelevant to what the consensus is. Number 5 7 14:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Wrong on both counts.
Private discussions do not create a broader consensus -- such discusisons are not flagged up for the attention of other editors.
Category names reflect article names for some types of categories. For many many others, a standardised descriptive format is used. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
No, not wrong at all, otherwise WP:C2D wouldn't exist. Number 5 7 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, very wrong. Please read WP:C2D, rather than just namechecking it. It is for topic categories, but this is a set category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I think we both need to read it, as you're also using WP:C2D to rename set categories! Number 5 7 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I am using it for homogeneous sets, unambiguously relating to the same entity. It's a stretch of C2D which seems to be regularly accepted, but you are trying to use it for diverse sets. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
See my final comment re wikilawyering. Number 5 7 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
This is all about consensus, not wikilawyering. Isn't the lack of support for your view hinting to you that just perhaps this might not be as back-and-white as you would like it to be?
As I noted below, if you don't understand the distinction between the types of category, then oppose those speedy noms and I will bring them to CFD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
As noted below, it turns out there was a CfD on this type of renaming, and it was approved without opposition. Also worth noting the editor who started that discussion! Number 5 7 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
C'mon, that hardly supports your argument. That category only contained articles about "Bristol City Council" so wasn't controversial in any way. Sionk ( talk) 21:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
And this category only contains articles about Wolverhampton City Council (remember, it's the same organisation). Number 5 7 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
If articles start to appear on pre-1974 Bristol elections, we'll need to revisit the categorsiation of that city's elections. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral -- Wolverhampton became a city about 15 years ago, but its extent is the same as the previous MBC, which was the same as the preceding County Borough. I am not sure if the county borough was expanded by the incorporation of adjoining urban districts in 1965 reforms. I see no reason in principle why they should not all be in the same category, with the changes in name being covered in a headnote. That is what we do for alumni categories of renamed or merged colleges, sometimes with slightly odd results. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename instead to Category:Wolverhampton council elections, per Oculi's proposal. I suppose in effect this is an "Oppose" to the current rename proposal. These are elections in the city of Wolverhampton (though a city only since 2000). The category also includes elections that weren't to a city council. Sionk ( talk) 00:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Sionk: It is exactly the same council as before, just renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Number 5 7 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • A one-size-fits-all approach is unnecessary here. In this case the elections definitely weren't city council elections before 2000. It's not semantics, just pragmatic common sense. There's no preclusion to the category remaining in its existing higher level cats, of course. Sionk ( talk) 01:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • @ Sionk: But it is semantics. There is no such thing in the UK as a "city council", so thete have never been "city council elections" in Wolverhampton. Wolverhampon City Council is a metropolitan borough council that currently goes under the WCC name. Number 5 7 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It seems to me that there are two misunderstandings behind this nomination:
  1. That the formal title of the council is its WP:COMMONNAME. In practice, the common usage for most is "Foo Council" rather than using the full title listing the type of council, and many councils style themselves according that to that short common name. So in common usage, it's "Lambeth Council" ( http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/) rather than "Lambeth London Borough Council", and "Wakefield Council" ( http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/) rather than "Wakefield Metropolitan District Council".
  2. There is nothing wrong with using a descriptive title for the category (per WP:NDESC) rather than the formal name. See for example Category:Council elections in Southwark
  3. Many areas had previous councils before the current entities. The descriptive name allows the category to include elections to both the current council and to previous councils in the area. In the example of Southwark, it includes election to the current "Southwark London Borough Council", but also to the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey, and the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark.
User:Number 57's proposal is made in good faith after other similar moves, but I believe that this excessive precision is mistaken because it leaves no place for elections before the current councils were created. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Similarly, I believe BrownHairedGirl is mistaken in two of her three claims above:
  1. Regarding the claim that the category name "leaves no place for elections before the current councils were created"; the councils created in the early 1970s are successors to those of the late 19th century, and in places where excessive re-organisation did not take place (as is the case in London), are effectively the same organisation. This means there is no problem at all in having them in the same category. It is also worth noting that the article on Wolverhampton City Council covers the entire history of the various guises of the council all the way back to 1777.
  2. Regarding the common name issue (a) in this case the common name is Wolverhampton City Council; compare Wolverhampton Council (44,500 hits) with Wolverhampton City Council (224,000 hits), and (b) common name should not be an issue for category names – they should simply match the title of the contents, which was the rationale for the renaming presented by Armbrust.
Number 5 7 09:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. Many articles contain a history section which mentions their predecessors. That doesn't alter the fact that their predecessors were not the same body. What exactly is the purpose of unneccessarily creating these anachronisms? What problem is being solved?
  2. Your point about matching title to contents is exactly the one I have been trying to persuade you to see. In this case, the contents are not exclusively elections to Wolverhampton City Council; most of them are elections to Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council. So if the name is to reflect the contents, WMBC would be the title to use. Better, however, to use neutral descriptive terminology: Category:Wolverhampton council elections. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I've explained this already above: Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council and Wolverhampton City Council are the same organisation – the council was just renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Thus the contents are exclusively limited to elections to this single organisation (and this is also why I gave the example above about Manchester United players). Number 5 7 13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
There were council elections in Wolverhampton before 1974, which were to a separate body. What exactly is your problem with using an all-inclusive descriptive title as suggested by Oculi? That option is not open to the football club categories, which is why yoir analogy is misplaced. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
My problem is that we use the current name of the council to categorise elections for almost all local authorities in the UK, and it would be good to get some consistency on category naming. "Wolverhampton council elections" is a needlessly vague title that does not match the main article for the category. Number 5 7 14:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
That's a bit silly. You do a long series of moves outside the consensus-forming processes, and then claim that your unilateral actions have created a convention.
So I'll ask again: What exactly is your problem with using an all-inclusive descriptive title as suggested by Oculi? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
As noted above, there were several discussions about appropriate titles for council election articles, and categories are supposed to match these. My problem with the proposal of "Wolverhampton council elections" is that it's unnecessarily imprecise when we have the main topic located at Wolverhampton City Council elections. It's also just a terrible name generally; "Council elections in Wolverhampton" would be far better, but for the benefit of the discussion closer, I should note that I am strongly opposed to both. Number 5 7 14:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Surely you can do better than a vague wave to some discussions, somewhere, with no links?
One of the problems is your concern that '"Wolverhampton council elections" is unnecessarily imprecise'. See WP:PRECISION: when disambiguating, we don't go more precise than needed. Why in this case do you seek un-needed precision?
You say that you are "strongly opposed" to "Council elections in Wolverhampton". I get that, but is there any reason founded in policy or guidelines for your strong opposition, or is that just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I would have thought it was obvious by now given that I've repeatedly stated it, but my opposition to the alternatives is founded in the convention that the category title should match the main article title, which is why I took it to WP:CFDS in the first place. The IDONTLIKEIT claim is rather unnecessary, and just seems designed to delegitimise my opinion Number 5 7 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
As above, you failed to read WP:C2D. It refers to topic categories; this is a set category. -- BrownHairedGirl 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit that is true. However, the wording appears to be widely ignored by pretty much everyone, including yourself as you have several nominations at present for what are clearly set categories (e.g. Category:St. Anthony's F.C. players and Category:Films directed by John Mackenzie) using the same WP:C2D rationale. But anyway, the convention that categories should be named after their main article still exists for set categories (which you yourself are in the midst of proving), even if we are not allowed to use the speedy process to make the move. Number 5 7 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I am using it for homogeneous sets, unambiguously relating to the same entity. It's a stretch of C2D which seems to be regularly accepted, but the distinction which you refuse to acknowledge (no matter how many times it is pointed out to you) is that you are trying to use it for diverse sets which do not all fit under the same proper name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Regardless, they are still set categories, and I find your attitude incredibly hypocritical. I think as we're reduced to this level of wikilawyering, there's no point in continuing. For the final record, I don't believe the potential articles are too diverse to fit into a renamed category. Number 5 7 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)As BrownHairedGirl says, you made a unilateral decision about the name of the Wikipedia article (which you changed) and then using that to justify your argument that the current category "does not match the main article for the category" (your words above). The question of how precise a Wikipedia article or category name need to be is exactly the one which needs to concern us here. If necessary the article name can be changed back, or to something better. Sionk ( talk) 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Can I be quite clear here – this renaming/moving is not something unilaterally done by myself – it was being done by other editors in this topic area too; e.g. [1] [2]. [3] [4] Number 5 7 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Number 57: I see a distinction, but you refuse to recognise it. That's up to you ... but if you consider my use of C2D to be inappropriate, then pop along to WP:CFD and oppose my nominations there. Then we can have a full discussion about at CFD.
Your call. --BrownHairedGirl 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not about refusing to recognise something (implying deliberately being awkward), it's simply disagreeing that it exists. I could be a complete arse and oppose your use of C2D, but we all know that this is how C2D normally works; it's just sad that you would try and claim otherwise to try and prove a point. Number 5 7 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Indeed, you don't acknowledge its existence. So how come several other editors are independently disagreeing with you? Doesn't that suggest to you in any way that this case is a little different, even you don't see accept the significance of that difference? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Equally, how come several other editors are independently agreeing with me? It's not really a very reasonable question to ask when the debate is a 50/50 split. By the way, I had a look in the CfD archives to see if there had been any previous discussions about category renaming to match the "Foo City Council elections" titles, and it turns out there was. It's rather interesting to see who started that discussion ;) Number 5 7 20:18, 21 January 2016 (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:Sheffield Council elections

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Sheffield City Council elections. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:19, 24 December 2015 (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:Mandarin-language singers of China

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. While not requested here, deletion seems to the consensus here. I will add the note suggested but I don't consider it as part of the close for this discussion since Category:Mandarin-language singers had no notification for here so people are free to revise or revert that without DRV or anything about it. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Followup of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 13#Mandarin-language categories. The suggested merge was largely ignored because it was grouped with the renaming of six other categories.
Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 9#Category:Korean-language singers of South Korea, this category is redundant. — ξ xplicit 02:55, 24 December 2015 (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:ABC Persons of the Week

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EPONCAT ( WP:NONDEFINING} and the spirit of WP:PERFCAT
ABC World News Tonight runs a 3-minute feel-good profile of an inspirational person on Friday just before the weekend ( link). There is no main article on this subject, this isn't a competitive award, and none of the articles I looked at even mentioned this honor.- RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Doncram as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Television. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose deletion. I came to this topic area previously because of a previous AFD about a person/organization that had received the honor. In the course of that AFD, I figured out that ABC Person of the Week (then and currently a redlink) appears to be a valid Wikipedia article topic. See the AFD. I drafted Draft:ABC Person of the Week but did not develop it very far, and I have not yet submitted it for mainspace. For the lesser-known persons named by ABC Person of the Week, the honor is important and is worth mentioning in their articles. For others who are already prominent (e.g. Caroline Kennedy), the honor may be relatively unimportant and need not be mentioned in their articles. I was thinking it would be reasonable to apply the category to articles for all persons identified (with citations) in the list at ABC Person of the Week article, although I may have been wrong about that. Anyhow anywhere the category would appear, a reader should be able to get to article itself, which will appear first in the category. I see that the CFD nomination is in good faith given that the article is only in draft-space. But the list and corresponding category are parts of a work-in-progress, in effect, where I believe there is overall notability. It is appropriate for the category to complement the list; see wp:CLT. I should get back to developing this a bit, and/or others could help out. -- do ncr am 03:42, 24 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_24&oldid=1090392083"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE