Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 12: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) →Category:Novel photovoltaic devices: closed - merge |
Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) →Category:Time magazine people: closed - merge |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==== Category:Time magazine people ==== |
==== Category:Time magazine people ==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' |
|||
:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''Merge'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Time magazine people]] to [[:Category:Time (magazine) people]] |
:'''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Time magazine people]] to [[:Category:Time (magazine) people]] |
||
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Per main article, [[Time (magazine)]] —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Per main article, [[Time (magazine)]] —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 31: | Line 35: | ||
*'''Support rename''' makes sense to me, per main article name. same for all below (lazy)[[User:Mercurywoodrose|Mercurywoodrose]] ([[User talk:Mercurywoodrose|talk]]) 05:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Support rename''' makes sense to me, per main article name. same for all below (lazy)[[User:Mercurywoodrose|Mercurywoodrose]] ([[User talk:Mercurywoodrose|talk]]) 05:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' to match article name. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' to match article name. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div> |
|||
==== Category:Time magazine articles ==== |
==== Category:Time magazine articles ==== |
Revision as of 20:21, 19 June 2010
June 12
Category:Cities that have Stolpersteine
Category:Time magazine people
Category:Time magazine articles
- Propose renaming Category:Time magazine articles to Category:Time (magazine) articles
- Nominator's rationale: Per Time (magazine). Alternate proposal, rename Category:Time articles as unnecessary disambiguation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename to "Time articles" as it is more simple. Airplaneman ✈ 23:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Time (magazine) articles for consistency and to match the name of the parent article. While the alternative name might be unambiguous to some, it may not be the best choice. Category:Time articles could be taken by many as a place for articles on time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep natural language in unanbiguous cases. The article name is not a holy cow. East of Borschov (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually that is an ambiguous name since time magazine can refer to any magazine about time. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. I too find Category:Time articles to be unnecessarily ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Time magazine
- Propose renaming Category:Time magazine to Category:Time (magazine)
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Time (magazine). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Makes sense. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename per name of main article. Airplaneman ✈ 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename. May as well match the article and category names in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Time magazine Persons of the Year
- Propose renaming Category:Time magazine Persons of the Year to Category:Time Persons of the Year
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename - new name is more simple, also per main article name. Airplaneman ✈ 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Rename to better match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Listify and delete -- This is an awards category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Solar cities
Category:Solar water pumping
Category:Novel photovoltaic devices
Category:Solar panels
Category:American jazz musical groups
Category:Solar chargers
- Propose upmerging Category:Solar chargers
- Nominator's rationale: Another underpopulated category from Nopetro, a Solar charger is a device which "employs solar energy to supply electricity to devices or charge batteries. They are generally portable." The only contents of this category is the main article and Q-Cells, a company whose core business is expressly described as not about the manufacture of solar chargers. Delete/upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL until such time as we have valid contents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support upmerge to Category:Solar devices, as it looks like the most fitting category to merge this into. Airplaneman ✈ 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom to all but Category:Energy harvesting. Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Confidence tricksters
- Propose renaming Category:Confidence tricksters to Category:Con artists
- Nominator's rationale: "Con artists" has a much higher number of Google entries than "Confidence tricksters" (643,000 v 18,100). Also there is already subcategory Category:Fictional con artists so renaming would provide consistency.--Penbat (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The main article is at confidence trick, and con artists redirects there. Lugnuts (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The associated articles are in a muddle and i intend to straighten them out by creating a new con artists article (I have a sandbox version in preparation at User:Penbat/con artists) and straightening out existing article confidence trick by incorporating the content of list of confidence tricks.
- Perversely the essential content of confidence trick was in the separate article list of confidence tricks, yet the list of con artists was embedded into confidence trick. My article reorganisation of having separate confidence tricks and con artists articles would be entirely consistent with the fact that there is currently an equivalent category for both (category:confidence tricks and category:confidence tricksters) the only problem being the name "confidence tricksters" which only has a tiny number of Google entries in comparison with the name "con artists". Also, as i said, subcategory category:fictional con artists already exists anyway.
- To reinforce my point even more we already have separate templates template:scams and confidence tricks and template:con artists.
- IMO there is no point in reinforcing the existing muddle by opposing. --Penbat (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – 'con artist' is a slang term for 'Confidence trickster' and should not be used in the name of any category or article. Indeed I would prefer a more formal word than 'trickster' but can't think of one offhand. (The UK term is con man. Trickster sounds American to me, but comprehensible. Confidence trick is a standard UK phrase.) Occuli (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment it is pejorative to dismiss "con artists" as being fringe "slang" when it has over 35 times the number of Google entries than "confidence tricksters". For the singular forms "con artist" and "confidence trickster" the ratio is even more enormous 1,620,000 v 24,400 - a ratio of over 66.
- Also your stance completely contravenes Wikipedia's own naming conventions:
- "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article."
- "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."
- There are issues with "con man":
- it has fewer Google hits than "con artist" (1,130,000 v 1,620,000)
- it has inherent gender bias issues
- i live in the UK and i have no problem with "con artist" instead of "con man" and hear "con artist" used just as much.
- 'Con artist' is a slang term, as is 'con man'. As is often the case these informal slang terms are in common use, and can of course be used as redirects (as they already are) to a more formal encyclopaedic name suitable for an article (or category). Is a wikipedia reader in China likely to know that a 'con artist' is a fraudster rather than a painter of some sort? Occuli (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even in Google scholar (http://scholar.google.com) "con artists" beats "confidence tricksters" by a big margin, 5,560 v 765, which completely reinforces the Wikipedia naming convention which you have chosen to ignore. Why are we particularly concerned about a Chinese with poor English (who should theoretically have their own Chinese version of Wikipedia) when in the English speaking world the use of the word "con artist" beats the use of the word "confidence trickster" by a vast margin. It is the most widely used expression for confidence trickster that the highest percentage of the population would be familiar with. Even for somebody not too familiar with the expression "con artist" i think would understand it as an expression and not specifically to do with artists. The expression "confidence trickster" isnt intrinsically clear what it means anyway.--Penbat (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Google hits are irrelevant. I agree that trickster is not ideal either, but it is better than artist. Occuli (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are you living on another planet ? There is no better objective assessment of popular usage that i know of than than Google. You havent come up with any other viable objective way of judging popularity. As "con artist" is vastly more popular on Google, even on Google Scholar, it hardly seems likely that you can support your case with anything else. Also your stance completely contradicts Wikipedia naming conventions Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names which take precedence over your idiosyncratic views. --Penbat (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- "artist" in the expression "con artist" is used in a metaphorical sense. It is very common, for example "spine" in the context of a book is used in a metaphorical sense.--Penbat (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep current name. As a native speaker of American English, I am much more familiar with the term "con artist" than I am with "confidence trickster." However, as Penbat has explained at length, "con artist" is a slang term that is unlikely to be readily understood by people unfamiliar with the idiom, while "confidence trickster" should make sense to anyone who reads the dictionary definitions of the constituent words. --Orlady (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- "Artist" gives them a spurious sound of respectibility. "Con trick" is good British English, but is a slangy abbreviation. Slang tends to be regional in the sense that it is not common to all versions of English. The present name is clear and non-slangy, even if Con Artist gets more Ghits. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Buildings and structures by owner
- Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures by owner to Category:Buildings and structures by company
- Nominator's rationale: Most companies lease office space rather than own it now. And, increasingly, companies sponsor different stadiums and other buildings. Also,there has been a rapid growth in new article about historic buildings that had a previous relationship with the company. All of this means that most of the articles in the sub-cats are no longer technically "owned" but otherwise associated. This renaming reflects the original intent of grouping building articls by company while being more accurate. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- comment. I have no real interest to keep this category (keep was my first batle cry; it passed). But there are some concerns to be addressed:
- Is it manageable, at all, either in present meaning or as proposed by RevelationDirect? Practically every building has owner(s), practically none are categorized.
- Should it list current owners (tenants?), or historical too, i.e. if someone creates Category:Palaces of the House of Habsburg, should it be a subset of "by owner"? I see absolutely no problem to see the Chrysler Building categorized under Category:Chrysler although Chrysler doesn't own the building for quite a while.
- The Habsburg example shows that "by company" is only a subset of "by owner" (other owners being private people, families, governments and municipalities etc.). East of Borschov (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- response: You're right, renaming the category as I proposed would preclude using it for palaces owned by a royal family since they're not a company. If you look at the current usage though, it's strictly corporate: AT&T, British Telecom, Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, Mayo Clinic, McDonald's, Pepsico and Royal Dutch Shell. There is a Category:Houses in the United States by family that could be expanded to other countries to cover your Hapsburg example.RevelationDirect (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note. Category is now tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Premier festivals in major American cities
- Category:Premier festivals in major American cities - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Premier is totally and completely subjective. No need to merge since the articles already are in appropriate festival categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. So change it to Largest 50 or something. 71.59.144.132 (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean Listify. Naming it as the 50 largest is an arbitrary inclusion criteria and still likely to be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen POV, WP:OR and non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as original research and POV concerns. "Premier" is not clearly defined and subjective. Airplaneman ✈ 21:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Inappropriate and UE. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Subjective, and no evidence of a solution that does not involve arbitrary criteria. Category:Festivals in the United States already has an entire category tree. --Closeapple (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Battery leasing
Category:Electric vehicles by country
Category:Electric vehicle conversions
- Propose renaming Category:Electric vehicle conversions to Category:Electric vehicle conversion
- Nominator's rationale: A Nopetro category, rename to match main article. This is not a category about different types of conversions, but about the process and industry as a whole. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support – I am considered a template to ease the burden of supporting the removal or renaming (per Shawn in Montreal) of all these ill-advised Nopetro creations. Occuli (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Cities and towns claimed by China and India
- Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns claimed by China and India to Category:Populated places claimed by China and India
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This contains a city, a town, and a village, so it is more properly a "Populated places" category, per this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename - sounds logical. Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- I have opposed the move to populated places, but in this case it is highly appropriate. This presumably relates to areas of India occupied by China in the 1960s. I suspect that most settlemtns in the areas are no more than villages, and only "cities" in the sense in which the term is used in US. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:IOS
- Propose renaming Category:IOS to Category:iOS (Apple)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is at IOS (Apple) and there is a very famous and longstanding IOS from CISCO, which is the primary usage of the term for software, and this one isn't (yet). This is a highly ambiguous name and needs to be changed. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support rename - I appreciate the desire to keep up to date with companies changing their product line names, but in a case where it conflicts with many similar articles, I agree that this should be disambiguated. jheiv talk contribs 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Apple iOS or Category:iOS (Apple). Already Cisco's well-established name. --Closeapple (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)