Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< October 29 October 31 >

October 30

Category:Horse jumps and obstacles

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: speedily deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Horse jumps and obstacles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All four articles in this category were merged into a single article. Remaining article was recategorized. There were once several more, all were previously merged. This is the final cleanup. No articles left in this category. Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 30 October 2009 (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:Roman Magister Equitums

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: no consensus, except that it needs to be renamed to something. There is no consensus on what that should be. Can be renominated at any point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Roman Magister Equitums to Category:Masters of the Horse
Nominator's rationale: The current category name is grammatically incorrect in Latin. Although several Wikipedians have good Latin, let me give an English example to show why. If you're trying to make the phrase "the right of women" plural, it would be illiterate to say "the right of womens"; that's essentially what Magister Equitums is doing, except that it's sticking the English plural ending -s onto a Latin word that's already plural. The plural of Magister Equitum is Magistri Equitum. There's a further wrinkle, however, in that the main article for this category is Master of the Horse, where we find that this phrase is used not only as a translation of the office in ancient Rome, but in English for a particular official and as an English translation of equivalent posts in other languages. The simplest solution is to rename the category Masters of the Horse; if desirable, subcategories could be later created such as Magistri Equitum of the Roman Republic, Magistri Equitum of the Roman Empire, Masters of the Horse in the United Kingdom, Grand Squires of France, etc. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a Wikipedians and I "have good Latin," but I wish I had used English well :)
    Talk 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Actually, no, it shouldn't be a Roman category; that was my point. The main article listed on the category page is Master of the Horse, which is international in scope; it just happens that all the individual pages in this category are Roman at present. The Roman subcategories would be: Category:Magistri Equitum of the Roman Republic, and Category:Magistri Equitum of the Roman Empire, as these were essentially two different offices. I agree with the comment that was made above: "The English and French [sub-]categories do not yet exist, and no-one seems interested in making them; so the logical thing to do seems to be to make the general cat - most of the members of which are not yet included in any related cat - and let those who wish to make subcats (a good idea) do so." Cynwolfe (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is pointless hair-splitting. The only parent is Category:Political office-holders in ancient Rome. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, apologies, but you're missing my point, which is exactly the opposite of splitting hairs. It's my view that the correct category is the broad and flexible "Masters of the Horse", in accordance with the main article Master of the Horse. This avoids all the hair-splitting of subcategories, and the problems of exotic naming from foreign languages. My goal was to make this simple. If you want to limit the category to ancient Rome, it seems to me that you will have to go with "Masters of the Horse in ancient Rome" or perhaps "Magistri Equitum'". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had indeed mistaken the nom & the other suggestion, now amended. The hair-splitting is saying that a main article has to = 100% the category contents, in the absence of a more specific one. What you call "the simplest solution" is to rename this category, then move all the contents except the main article to a new sub-category, redoing the parents along the way. There are simpler ways. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not asking for any of the stuff you describe. I'm asking that the category-name be changed from incorrect Latin to either the most common English expression or to correct Latin. I'm under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that an administrator is required to change a category-name; if this were an article title, I would've simply moved it, and in all likelihood nobody would've even noticed. It's already been agreed that Magister Equitums is embarrassingly illiterate. You can change it to the grammatically correct Magistri Equitum, or to the more common English expression "Masters of the Horse." But I'm not going to waste any more of my time talking about it, since there's nothing I can do about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{unindent} Johnbod, we need to do something here. What are you suggesting is the 'simpler way'? It looks to me that we need a category "Masters of the Horse". Why not just rename this one?

talk) 11:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Come on, I've explained that above, as has Choster. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could have repeated it - your comment that you'd mistaken the nom & other suggestion made me wonder what you now thought should be done. It would have saved time if you'd just repeated yourself. I still think this should be renamed "Masters of the Horse". If that then means other changes should be made, ok, we can do those. If you change it to 'Ancient Roman Masters of the Horse' (I much prefer 'Masters of the Horse in Ancient Rome' - it not only sounds better (to me at least) it makes it clearer that there are other 'Masters of the Horse') that won't solve the other issues.
talk) 13:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If there are technical reasons having to do with the genealogy of the category page that argue against changing the name simply to Category:Masters of the Horse and that require the category to be restricted to ancient Rome, then I suppose my nomination is that we change the page to Category:Masters of the Horse in ancient Rome. However, the main article Master of the Horse would itself no longer belong in that category, which would be too limiting. I would guess that the article originated specifically as an SPQR feature, and then people started saying 'hey, what about ..." and aiming for a more 'global' (in this case Euro-wide) perspective. I've seen this problem of proportion on some other pages dominated by the SPQR graphic, with content that was by no means restricted to ancient Rome. Category:Masters of the Horse could then be created from scratch. I would hope also that the comment of Peterkingiron above would not be overlooked, since it's made with an awareness of the subject outside ancient Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You people are way overcomplicating this. Master of the Horse can always be split into two articles, one covering the ancient office and another for the revival.- choster 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's complicating this is people raising issues that are tangential to correcting the category name, and then not stating what name they think should be used in lieu of the ungrammatical Magister Equitums. Johnbod and Choster both have legitimate things to say; but could we please have some comments that state clearly and directly how to rename the current category? That's the issue. Every time I try to refocus on "how about the following names", the response is not directed at the name, but at some procedural concern. What do you think the category should be renamed? Answer that first, and then deal with the consequences. Jeez, has Wikipedia become so cumbersome that we can't correct a grammatical error? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is suggesting changing the scope of the category; Choster & I support a simple rename. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you just did it again: you didn't say what name you support. Category:Masters of the Horse, as nominated and in accordance with the main article, or Category:Masters of the Horse in ancient Rome? Or something else? I don't know how many times I can say that my primary interest lies in correcting the illiteracy of Magister Equitums. Just say what name you prefer so we can arrive at a consensus for renaming. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I prefer Category:Masters of the Horse as the simplest solution; if anybody then wants to make subcats for England or France or Rome, fine. But what I want is to move this cat somewhere else less illiterate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have past a perfectly clear !vote above; it's just you don't like it. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's clear to the administrator who will be making the change, that's fine with me. I just want it changed to something grammatical. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here, or are you just slightly deranged? Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cynwolfe used it in two senses; the first sentence refers to Johnbod's original post; the second to the name of this cat - unfortunate, but surely venial in a conversation. In addition to missing that, Johnbod seems to have mislaid his manners. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yes, that's what I meant. I was trying to say that I'm fine with whatever consensus emerges as interpreted by an administrator willing to make the change, as long as this action corrects the ungrammatical Magister Equitums. But believe me, if I ever see a mistake on Wikipedia again and I can't correct it myself, I'm just leavin' it be. If it weren't for the loving memory of my first Latin teacher, I'd have given up on this point a long time ago. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm totally puzzled. My !vote above says "*Rename to Category:Ancient Roman Masters of the Horse" but apparently this is as cryptic as the Da Vinci Code. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think our confusion was what Dougweller pointed out above: after that, you seemed to be rethinking. I hope we can arrive at a solution without personal attacks. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, as seems to be the case, you are confused as to what your confusion was, I would suggest going on on the basis that you are not confused after all. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the discussion and as the originator of the proposal, could I get yea/nay on the following?
  1. Rename Category:Roman Magister Equitums to Category:Masters of the Horse in ancient Rome
  2. Create Category:Masters of the Horse
  3. Make the newly renamed Category:Masters of the Horse in ancient Rome a subcategory of the newly created Category:Masters of the Horse
  4. Welcome any additional subcategories users might want to add to Category:Masters of the Horse.
Does this seem like a workable compromise/consensus based on all the contributions above? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 1)I prefer starting with "Ancient Roman ..." which is I think the norm for biography cats with modern equivalents, & already has 3 supports above, but I don't really mind. 2) as noted above, does not need approval here, though several have already expressed it, 3) follows from 2) obviously, & 4) there do not seem enough articles for other sub-cats, except an English one, so for now the others should stay in 2). I may say I'm a bit dubious about the English list, as none of the articles I looked at mentioned it, & I think in some cases it may be being confused with miliary roles. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My preference for "in ancient Rome" is not vehement, but here's what it's based on: we're talking about the office within the political entity "ancient Rome", whereas "Ancient Roman" as an adjective applied to a person can be taken to denote the person's ethnicity or origin. Those who held the office under Constantine would have held political citizenship but not necessarily been "Roman." I concede that this may be hair-splitting, but I think of it as precision, based on demographic differences between the Republic and the later stages of the Empire, when many people in government simply weren't Roman. I agree that no other sub-cats need to be created at this time. I'm simply looking for a structure that accommodates future growth. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2009 (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:Abnaki class fleet ocean tugs

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) 08:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Abnaki class fleet ocean tugs to Category:Abnaki class tugs
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article of
Abnaki class tug. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (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:Al Wasl Club Pages

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 Category:Al Wasl Club Pages to Category:Al Wasl FC. --Xdamrtalk 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Al Wasl Club Pages to Category:AlWasl Club
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name corresponds to the article about the club,
AlWasl Club (without the space). The word "Pages" in the current title is unnecessary, because every category on Wikipedia by definition contains pages. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Go ahead guys. I don't mind at all and I can see the point clearly. --Jaberm (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (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:De La Salle Professional Schools

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:De La Salle Professional Schools to Category:De La Salle University
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge small cat to parent, unclear inclusion criteria. Tassedethe (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (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:De La Salle University-Manila alumni

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) 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:De La Salle University-Manila alumni to Category:De La Salle University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent Category:De La Salle University and article De La Salle University. Tassedethe (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2009 (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:Wikipedia categories that should contain only sub-categories

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 per nom. While there has been some discussion about a better name for the target, that suggestion seems to hide the need to combine these two like categories from the consensus in the discussion. So once merged, Category:Parent categories may need to be nominated so that a possible better name can be discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia categories that should contain only sub-categories to Category:Parent categories
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories, and their respective templates, accomplish the same thing. There is no need to have two separate templates for this purpose. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Container-cat. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; possibly rename to a better name. Seems to have resulted because each template has a category. I agree that there's no need to have both. (I created the nominated category.) However, Category:Parent categories is not a very good name, since a category can be a parent category but not be restricted to being a category that should only contain subcategories. Maybe it should be clarified a bit? Category:Parent-only categories or similar? The name of the nominated category is probably too restrictive. As an administrative/hidden category, I also think "Wikipedia" should be in the category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into Category:Wikipedia parent-only categories. This is (as Good Ol’factory states) clearer as to the objective. It may aslo serve to warn editors that they are adding a category of too high a level in the category tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete together with {{
    Container-cat}}. I see no justification for such a thing, nor a need for them even if a justification were to be found. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete - The maintenance template is very helpful, but not sure that I can think of a reason for the cat. Will support merging to Category:Wikipedia parent categories if we can figure out a reason to. Not a fan of the "-only", because a parent cat may actually contain a few specific pages besides categories in some situations. Especially an eponymous article on the topic of the parent cat. - jc37 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The category can be (kind of) useful in performing routine clean-up of categories. You can trawl the categories listed in it and work at removing articles that have been misplaced in the subcategory-only categories. That being said, it's also very possible to do this just by identifying where the template is transcluded via "what links here" on the template page, so it's not a great advantage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points. Since this only exists due to a single template populating it (or will, once they're merged), I think we can probably do without the category. - jc37 13:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I have used them for clean-up in the past, but it's really the template I want, not the category. I'm fine with deletion of both categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into a single category; Category:Wikipedia container categories would be my choice, as it echoes the name of the template. Robofish (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Parent categories for now. That category should then (it hasn't been tagged) be deleted or renamed to Category:Container categories or Category:Wikipedia container categories (no preference at this time). I think that "container category" is a better term for this type of category than "parent category", since a category can be a parent to one or more other categories and also contain numerous articles. However, like jc37, I see the value of the template but am having some difficulty coming up with a justification for the category. Oppose any variant with "-only" as there are many cases when a container category should include one or two directly-related pages. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:07, 22 November 2009 (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:United States rolling stock

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: SUPERSEDED by the comprehensive discussion at Wikipedia:Categories\ for discussion/Log/2009 November 11#Subcategories of Category:Rolling stock by country. postdlf (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States rolling stock to Category:American rolling stock
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form in Category:Rolling stock by country. Note that as an adjective it is accepted that American refers to the United States. I'll add that if you search wikipedia for "Category:American" you get 723,000 hits. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is related to the discussion about locomotives see here. The consensus there seems to be settling on Locomotives of foo which suggests that this should be Rolling stock of United States. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment and this should be changed to 'Rolling stock of foo' for all the categories for all the countries also. The parent category is 'by country', not 'by nationality' Hmains (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not clean this exception up and then have the larger discussion. This is no guarantee that the alternative proposal would get support and if it does, there is still the issue of using 'in' or 'of'. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose instead rename this and the other members to Rolling stock of X like the proposals for locomotives. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend? Can I suggest we suspend this until the locomotives one is settled and then relist it?. There is also the question of whether it should be of foo or in foo. It might save us a lot of work. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to suspend. Let us just decide that this one will be reformed like that one. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Rolling stock of the United States as a start for all such categories. The parent category is 'by country', not 'by nationality'. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Rolling stock of the United States. I didn't notice this discussion — I only noticed it after CfD tagging all the other members of Category:Rolling stock by country to “Rolling stock of Foo”. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 11#Subcategories of Category:Rolling stock by country for full listing Iain Bell (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (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:Christian video game images

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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian video game images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of video games and christian icons. A category for christion video games would be great -- assuming it doesn't exist yet. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a
List of Christian video games by release --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
which intersection is intended: images in Christian video games, or Christian images in video games? DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 30 October 2009 (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:Plays by John Pickering

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. --Xdamrtalk 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plays by John Pickering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - As the author only wrote this one play (that exists, that we know of) a category seems hardly necessary Declan Clam (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2009 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_30&oldid=1144514319"