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. – FayenaticLondon 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was moved from the former to the current name back in Sept 10, by the consensus of single IP editor. The main article is Wellington, not Wellington City. I don't know too much about cities and naming conventions of New Zealand places, so unless a better argument is presented, the category should match the article. If it isn't moved, recommend that both Category:People from Wellington and Category:People from Wellington (city) redirect to the current name. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ambiguous. While this may be the primary use for an article name, clearly there are too many places that share the name which would make the risk of mis-categorization too high. Mention Wellington in the context of a place, I think of the city in eastern Canada, which I see from the dab page is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that could happen. There is no easy way when looking at categories to find members that are not correct where there are multiple common uses. There is nothing wrong with disambiguation even if some editors believe that it is bad. In some cases, it is near impossible to verify the links to articles! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nominating statement of Grutness in the previous discussion. Wellington City is the capital, Wellington is the general urban area, and Wellington Region is the region/former province. This category is for people from Wellington City. Other cities in the urban area of Wellington have their own categories, eg, Category:People from Lower Hutt. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you suggesting is confused? Me, you, or Wikipedia? I don't think I'm confused about anything; I've lived in NZ and am fairly up on the background facts. The article Wellington appears to me to be about the urban area rather than Wellington City proper. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the same doesn't apply to Christchurch. The Christchurch urban area and Christchurch city are pretty much co-extensive. The Wellington urban area has five cities within it, one of which is Wellington City. In that respect, it is somewhat unique in NZ. There could be a separate WP article about Wellington City, but pretty much everything we would want to say in such an article already exists in either Wellington or Wellington City Council. Grutness is from NZ too and I think he set out the problems of the Wellington situation well in the previous nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the article, it seems to be more about the general urban area than Wellington City. And when people refer to "Wellington", often they are referring to the general urban area rather than Wellington City. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ambiguous. Wellington (disambiguation)#Places lists many other places of this name, and while the article on the city/urban area in NZ does appear to be the primary topic, the removal of any qualifier creates ambiguity. Per the discussion above, "Wellington City" may not be the best disambiguator; maybe "Wellington (uran area)" or "Wellington (city)" would be better. So I may change my !vote if a proposal emerges for a name which would clarify the scope. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See JPL's comment below, which I endorse. The difference in magnitude ain't so great here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other similar examples, though, where the difference in population is far less. See, eg, Category:Cambridge and Category:Cambridge, Ontario, both of which are estimated to have populations of around 130,000. I think experience has shown the wisdom of following the name of the main article in category names, even when some degree of residual ambiguity results. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, "Wellington (urban area)" and "Wellington (city)" are not synonymous. Wellington (urban area) includes Wellington City, Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, Porirua, and the Kapiti Coast, all of which are separate cities and have separate categories for people from them. See the subcategories of Category:People from the Wellington Region. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I get the point that they are not synonymous. I am not standing over any particular qualifier or disambiguator, just looking for something which clarifies the scope. I don't mind too much what that is. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Wellington, Florida having over 50,000 people and Wellington, New Zealand having under 400,000 people the London analogy fails.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other similar examples, though, where the difference in population is far less. See, eg, Category:Cambridge and Category:Cambridge, Ontario, both of which are estimated to have populations of around 130,000. I think experience has shown the wisdom of following the name of the main article in category names, even when some degree of residual ambiguity results. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Cambridge case we should rename and stop being so biased.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you fell that way, your are free to nominate. I just looked at Category:Cambridge and the intro probably provides a history of the past problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the dab headers, but I personally hadn't heard of any user encountering any problems. Just trying to be proactive. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Wellington, New Zealand. The original is Wellington, Somerset from which the Duke took his title; I presume that the city is named after the great British general. The precedent for this is Birmingham, where the categories are at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to prevent them picking up articles on Birmingham, Alabama. It is soemtimes necessary to use a disambiguator for categories of this kind, when the main article has none. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing a town of less than 14,000 to a city of multiple hundreds of thousands. The two Birminghams are much closer in population, with both being around one million, so that's hardly a precedent that would have direct application here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (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:Reportedly haunted locations in the Philippines[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I propose these categories be merged due to redundancy. Splitfusion (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2013 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy -- This is a question of the appropriate transliteration of Greek names. For reasons not clear to me, the trasnliteration seems to have gone via a Latin version of the name, Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that Achaea (and Arcadia, Corinthia etc, i.e. names that have been around since Antiquity) are usually and traditionally used in English in their latinized forms. In other words, this is not the transliteration of modern Greek name like Kozani, but a name that has existed in English, via Latin, for some time now. That's why you have Athens and not Athina, Bavaria and not Bayern, Scania and not Skane, etc. Constantine ✍ 19:06, 7 July 2013 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 14:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename all listed. On May 14, the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa announced that effective July 1, all of the school's men's sports teams would adopt the nickname "Rainbow Warriors". This ended a 13-year period in which some teams used "Rainbow Warriors", others used "Warriors", and the baseball team used "Rainbows". The Associated Press reported on it at the time — see this ESPN reprint of the story. Note that because of this change in policy by the school, this may or may not qualify for speedy renaming under C2C. Dale Arnett (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article makes it clear there is no consensus and the school already flipped its position on this issue once this year. I am not convinced they know what they are doing yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. It's not for you to say this isn't really happening. The school has announced that all male teams now bear the name "Rainbow Warriors." End of discussion. All top-level categories should be moved, though shouldn't categories for players and coaches remain in order to associate the player or coach in question with the nickname under which they represented the school? (Some, especially coaches, will straddle multiple categories) We do after all have Category:California Angels players, Category:Anaheim Angels players, and Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim players, for instance (Tim Salmon and Garret Anderson are in all three categories, but Mark Langston is in only two and Mike Trout in only one, to illustrate how this would work). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 12:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Green-eyed girl: I know what you are suggesting about keeping the historical names for college athletes to show when they represented the school, but none of the college sports WikiProjects have adopted this as their standardized practice. Regardless of what the school may have been nicknamed at the time of their playing career all athletes are categorized by what the current nickname is. See Category:Oklahoma State Cowboys basketball players, for example. If anything, category descriptions will suffice to denote the differences in historical nicknames. The only exception that the college sports WikiProjects have adopted is if a player played for a school's team but then that school dropped the sport (see Category:Marquette Golden Avalanche football players). Otherwise the current nickname is used. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that some schools have changed their name (the name of the school, this is before we get into sports teams) five or more times, to try to apply the contemporary name of the school would create a mess. With sports teams names, they often evolve over time in a haphazard way, so to try to categorize players under the nickname when they played would lead in some cases to making it really hard to figure out what is going on with category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2013 (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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are articles about places, not articles about place names. We do not normally categorize places by characteristics of their names (WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES). "associated with" is ambiguous. DexDor (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (1) Although these are articles about places, most do also discuss the etymology and meaning of the name. (2) We certainly do (sometimes) categorise articles on places by aspects of their names: compare Category:Place names of Turkish origin in Romania, Category:Slavic toponyms, Category:Portuguese toponyms, and many more. (3) Given that this category includes some places with a well-documented Jewish history (e.g. Jüdenstraße (Berlin-Mitte)), and others where the Jewish connection is much more dubious and debatable (e.g. Jewry Wall), "associated with" seems an entirely appropriate term to use. GrindtXX (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "most also discuss" isn't enough for categorization - if it was every article about a city would be in categories for architecture, transport, education, culture.... (2) Most articles about places are not categorized by characteristics of their name, many/most of the pages in the categories you listed are disambiguation pages, WP:OTHERSTUFF. (3) "the Jewish connection is much more dubious and debatable" shows that it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Consider this thought experiment: A place is renamed (unlikely in this particular case, but streets, cities etc do sometimes get renamed) would you rename the article and on that basis decide it's no longer eligible to be in the category ? If so, you're categorizing by name (rather than by article subject). Toponymy categories should be for articles about toponymy (e.g. Welsh toponymy), not for articles about places (or dab pages). DexDor (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete A classic case of a "shared name" category. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; many of the other cats cited by GrindtXX are problematic too as their inclusion in the cited categories lacks any reference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a horribly named category where it is not even clear what the inclusion criteria really is. Anyway, we have over and over again made it clear we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. These articles are on places, not names. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- conceivably after listifying. The whole concept is far too vague. In the past few months, we have deleted a series of categories based on the origins of names, and this is no different. If this were about articles on Hebrew placenames, it would be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure what the subject is or if it's relevant to listify as proposed by 76.65.128.222. I'm not averse to listifying if there's a legitimate, real topic of interest to nomenclature scholars or whatever. --Lquilter (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 14:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a recently-created category that isn't really an appropriate way to categorize ships. Categories like Category:Ships sunk by mines aren't as bad as they categorize a ship by its "cause of death" (we treat articles about individual ships a bit like articles about people). This could be listified. DexDor (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: Firstly, categories aren't a bad thing because they group articles by common features. Secondly, this particular category augments other categories, in particular Category:Missing ships as we know with these ships, when and were they have sunk as opposed to the former where we can't be sure. Thirdly, the information relevant for this category can be found in many ship's registers and shipping related lists with respect to an individual ship and her fate. There is no comprehensive list of ships lost with all hands, not even broken down by year or area.
Delete we categorize ships by cause of death, not how catastrophic it was to the crew.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question @John Pack Lambert, who is "we" and can you provide a link to some wik-rule that supports your assertion? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why not categorise ships by how catastrophic it was for those on board? From a seafarer's perspective it seems a very reasonable thing to categorise. "Lost with all hands" is only a relative measure, as a troop ship being lost with, for example, "only" 1,000 of the 3,000 people aboard is a bigger disaster than a cargo ship being lost with, say, all 45 hands. But a "Lost with all hands" category can at least group all sinkings from which no-one aboard survived to tell the tale. I have no objection this category and I will continue to add ships to it. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Ships "lost with all hands" (LWAH) are widely regarded as being a particularly grave sort of tragedy, because there is nobody left to tell the story how what happened to the vessel. The phrase itself is widely used (159,000 gBooks hits). However, it seems to me that the significance of LWAH seems to me to be largely a memorial one, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If we strip away the memorial aspect, I don't see a huge difference between a ship with one survivor and a ship with none. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question @BrownHairedGirl, are you saying that this category should not be used to memorialize ships? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete This change has not been studied and thought out. A look at various articles in this category shows that, if this is deleted, the ships would no longer be in any category indicating their loss. Since the loss of a ship is so obviously defining to the ship, this result is completely unhelpful to the WP category system. Hmains (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just sampled some of the articles now in the category and they all had at least one other missing/shipwreck/lost/sunk etc category - often several such categories. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing a need to categorize by something as arbitrary as percentage of people on board who died. Resolute 21:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per resolute. No need for a special list either - I'm sure there are lists of shipwrecks, into which these would all fit presumably.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment shipwrecks are not 1:1 with shipwrecks. Shipwrecks are about the found remains of ships; lost ships very much include ships lost with no trace, no wreck. Hmains (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For many of the reasons already made. We are getting into overcategorisation with this I think. While it's reasonable to categorise articles about ships by what caused the ultimate 'demise' of said ship, I don't think it's a good idea to start categorising by what happens to some/none/all of their passengers or crew. I'd also like to draw attention to Category:Ships sunk with no fatalities - the obvious corollary of this approach, alas, and I fear even worse Category:Ships abandoned by their captain. This last I suspect from its contents is being used frowningly (and thus POVishly) on the said captains, but really equally refers to any instance of a ship loss in which the captain did not go down with his or her ship. I'd think these should be included with this nomination. Benea (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've CFDed the "abandoned by captain" category. It might be best to leave the "no fatalities" category until this CFD is closed. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment As I tried to point out above, the defining characteristic is not the fate of the people on board of these ships but the fact, that the cause of their demise is not known with any certainty. The loss of any ship is due as much to external factors (e.g. weather conditions) as to internal factors (e.g. how the captain/crew reacted). Usually there is some kind of investigation in these cases (e.g. United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic) which can have legal consequences for those involved (as can be seen with the Costa Concordia disaster). With the lack of survivors there are obviously no witnesses to anything that went on aboard the ship and hence to the internal factors of the disaster. For this reason the other categories mentioned are indeed unnecessary. The category for abandoned ships should be replaced by one for captains who abandoned their ships since that is actually a crime. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would you delete this? I've read the arguments and I don't see a a single thing wrong with this category. While we do categorize by cause of disaster, we also categorize by country and by type of ship and other schemes too. The not memorial policy has absolutely nothing at all to do with this category, maybe Brown Eyes Girl should actually read that section. There is nothing wrong with a shipwreck being both in this category and other categories. And it doesn't have to be a "defining characteristic" to be categorize, otherwise we wouldn't have categories like Category:British authors. In short, I don't see any validity to any of the arguments for deletion. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being "lost with all hands" is a very defining trait of ships when it occurs; the wreck is inevitably defined using that term. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rationale provided by the nominator (This is a recently-created category that isn't really an appropriate way to categorize ships) does not explain why this category, which contains more than 500 entries and must have taken the editors who built it a fair amount of effort, should be deleted. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2013 (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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've checked many of the articles in these categories and not found any articles that are specifically about minting coins. Some articles (e.g. Enna, Abacaenum, Palencia) mention coinage and some (e.g. Sights and landmarks of Seville, Soria) don't even mention the mint or coins. In other words, it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these places/articles. This appears to be an attempt to create a list of places where there were mints (inappropriately) in category space; the category header text pretty much acknowledges this ("Most of these articles do not contain much information about the mints themselves") as does the talk page. DexDor (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize places such as cities by activities that are carried on in them. That is what is going on here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LIstify -- I checked the four Hellenistic articles. Two were largely about their coinage; one was a city known from its coins but not securely identified. The category should be called "Ancient cities with mints". This is essentially a performace (having mint) by performer (city) category, which we do not allow WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (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.
