Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 9 July 11 >

July 10

Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films

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: procedural close as the category pages were not tagged; this partly explains why there was so little discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories proposed to be renamed:

Both categories are vaguely named.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment but the proposed name is not any better. How about Category:Professional digital video cameras. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Video works well. The key word is "professional". Technically speaking, an iPhone could be a "digital movie camera"--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards oppose. At least we have a main article in Camcorder. Are you sure the dividing line between "consumer grade" and "professional" video cameras will be clear? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between "consumer" and "professional" is often determined by the manufacturer, how the product is marketed and where the product is retailed. Any camera that is marketed for usage on professional productions usually have a feature set for such, e.g. high bitrate codecs, SDI outputs, ability to shoot in log color space, PL mount options, customizable frame rates and shutter. "Camcorder" is a limiting term. For example, there have been quite a few films shot on video DSLRs that would fall under the category of consumer grade digital video cameras as they are at the bottom of their manufacturer's product line and and are sold at big box retailers, but can't be classified as "camcorders" because of customizable shooting settings and interchangeable lenses.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per User:Shawn in Montreal. I understand what the nom is trying to convey, I just think we need a defined term here, not a Wikipedian created neologism. That and I think that there is a fine line here, whether using the word "professional" as an adjective is appropriate (professional grade maybe?) or whether is would merely be subjective (or worse - see WP:Weasel). Remember, to even be listed, the article categorised would presumably follow notability, or at the very least WP:NOT, so I don't think we will need to be concerned about John Q Consumer's home movies being categorised here : ) - jc37 16:42, 22 September 2014 (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:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama

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: Per nom (with no prejudice for or against the potential creation of the "Villages by Governorate" structure proposed/discussed by several below.) - This CFD could potentially have been closed as "not tagged" (apparently only Category:Villages in Hama was tagged), because we rely on tagging to make sure that people interested in commenting here have the opportunity to do so. But since the only editors of the categories have been the creator (User:Zaher kadour and User:Fayenatic london (apparently to add them to the current structure), both of whom have commented below, and the category creations appear to be done contrary to long standing consensus and convention, I'll WP:IAR for this and close this as-is. If User:Zaher kadour is concerned about the current structure, they are welcome to start a discussion at a related WikiProject, or if appropriate, to do a group nomination here for discussion. But at this point, WP:BOLD re-creation without community discussion would likely be seen as disruptive. - jc37 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Villages in Hama with Category:Populated places in Hama Governorate and sort by district as the convention is to neatly organize villages as populated places by district for Syria. Redundant category out of order with the others. Also the "Hama" rather than Hama Governorate is confusing as Hama is also a city and district. I also propose renaming Category:Subdistricts of Hama as Category:Subdistricts of Hama Governorate to avoid the same confusion. Zaher the creator just doesn't listen to what convention is on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose the deletion of the following categories which are redundant to Category:Populated places in Aleppo Governorate etc and sub categories.

@BrownHairedGirl: Apologies if I've done anything incorrectly, can you help tag those categories for deletion?♦ Dr. Blofeld

No, you'll find that most countries on here are organized by Category:Populated places by country. There has been a long established convention for Syria to categorize settlements by populated places and district and you've ignored the convention and what already exists and gone off and done your own thing. If you can't follow consensus then don't edit here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: What part about categorized as populated places by district don't you get?? The convention for Syria on here is all settlements by district NOT villages by governorate and without any title with Governorate to even imply they're referring to governorate and not district or even city is just wrong. What a bloody mess you're encouraging with organization. I know you mean good faith @Zaher kadour: and appreciate the work you're doing but you're really causing an organisational problem with your system and putting things out of order which Al ameer son has worked so hard to put order into. Perhaps @Huldra: could shed some light on the custom to categorize settlements by district. Anyway, if we were going to begin categorizing by villages it would be by district of each governorate and with Cat:Villages in xxx District anyway. What a mess. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the choice here is to either merge each village category with its corresponding Populated places by Governorate category and Category:Villages in Syria; or to subdivide the Villages in Syria category up by Governorate (in which case they should all be renamed). Tim! (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am against the proposal to merge categories with category Populated places in XXX, and I don't against renamed to include Governorate word, but I don't see a reason for it, and there is no confusing as I have already clarified here and in my talk page. @Dr. Blofeld: I respect the community and his decisions and if there was a consensus earlier, I don't know about but we can re-discussed. --Zaher talk 22:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge/deletions, rename all (villages and subdisctricts) appending "Governorate" to remove ambiguity and match corresponding categories. These are a legitimate part of Category:Populated places in Syria which includes cities and towns as well as villages. I do not think the villages categories should be split all the way down to district level. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Dr. Blofeld, I don't see the harm done here. To avoid confusion with the city and district and also for the sake of accessibility. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If ultimately we decided Villages by Governorate too as well as Populated places by district is really necessary (which would be redundant) it would be e,g Category:Villages in Homs Governorate anyway as Homs is also a city, subdistrict and district. Now there's an inconsistency with just a few villages in each governorate categorized as such. This is really a mess that's been created with the ordering convention for Syrian places.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The present categorization scheme is well-organized and logical, since the country is divided into govornates, and the govornates are divided into districts. I must assume that the status of the civil war is irrelevant to this breakdown, even if control of some areas is in flux.
    • Each settlement (village, town or city) is in "category:Populated places in ... District".
    • Each district category is in "category:Populated places in ... Govornate".
    • Each govornate category is in "Category:Populated places in Syria by governorate".
Introducing new and ambiguous categories like "category:Villages in Homs" can only cause confusion. Is that villages in Homs Govornate or just villages in Homs District? If the latter, how is it different from "category:Populated places in Homs District"? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Dr. Blofeld's reasoning of accessibility. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per the accessibility (and other) very good arguments above. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am Oppose split main category to categories by districts and subdistricts, because I don't see a good reason, and any person who has confusion there are templates like {{Hama Governorate}} and {{Homs Governorate}} is divided by districts and subdistricts. --Zaher talk 21:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You come along and try to destroy what has been convention for years on here and are disrupting the hard work that Al ameer son has done in putting universal order into Syrian articles purely because you don't like it. Having an extra village categories is redundant, and anyway a lot of editors don't know when a village formally ends and a small town begins for countries like Syria, hence "populated places". Syrian settlements are neatly categorized by district on here and you need to learn to understand this and that we add the word Governorate on the end when categorizing provinces on wikipedia to avoid confusion with cities and districts. I've told you several times but you're just not listening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Zaher kadour, you have told as three times that you do not see the reason to categorize the villages by district instead of just by govornate. Imagine zooming in on Google maps and getting stopped very early on with a fuzzy picture saying "no higher resolution". By giving district-level categories we are giving higher resolution than govornate-level categories. With no extra effort we are giving more useful information. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per the nominator. This makes complete sense to me! Cassiantotalk 16:34, 15 July 2014 (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:Songs written by Samuel Barnes (songwriter)

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 but then reinstate them to hold The Message (Nas song) by Barnes and No One Else (Total song) by Olivier. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Samuel Barnes and Jean-Claude Olivier comprise Trackmasters. However, it doesn't make sense for each of them to have separate songwriting categories, as neither of them have separate articles (a Wikipedia search for either of their names redirects to the Trackmasters article). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member/trading name affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This is supported by WP:SONGS which states, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members. Previous discussions include The Bee Gees and The Miracles and Lady Antebellum where the category has been devolved into individual members. I also note that separate names are credited as songwriters in the members of these two categories, if not production credits.
PS. There are songs listed which were not written by both the partners of Trackmasters. There is no requirement to have an article to have a category (songwriters being a defining characteristic of a song).

--Richhoncho (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members." Um...that's actually proving my point. Anyway, I think the other point you missed was, why should Barnes and Olivier have their own categories if they don't have their own articles? And if making categories by songwriting team is such a headache as you say, how do you explain Category:Songs written by Holland–Dozier–Holland and Category:Songs written by Jagger/Richards? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response. When quoting it is worth including the relevant part of the guideline, which reads, "songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals" There are two reasons why HDH and JR don't apply, one is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I'll let you work out the other reason. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you're opposing, you need to explain the other reason, not me. And the fact that you bring up WP:OSE suggests that the categories shouldn't be merged simply because you don't want them to be. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is a writing partnership and should follow this format (e.g. Category:Songs written by Lennon–McCartney). If this logic is not accepted, then the two categories should be deleted as the songwriters are not notable people in their own right. SFB 22:11, 12 July 2014 (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:Spacecraft that orbited Moon

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: speedy rename C2A. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. My sense is that it should be "... the Moon". A possible speedy, but just bringing it here in case I'm missing something. Compare to Category:Spacecraft that impacted the Moon—we should use one wording or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2014 (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:Phases of the Moon

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. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The corresponding article is Lunar phase. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename WP:C2D. 02:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the set term "phases of the Moon" is the common way to put the plural form. While "Lunar phase" is the more common way to put the singular. phases of the moon [1][2] lunar phases [3][4] -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think that, since the category includes articles like Blue moon and Wet moon, that this appears, semantically at least, to be more than just merely a category of Lunar phases. I suppose I wouldn't strongly oppose a different rename to more clearly indicate this seemingly broader definition/inclusion criteria, but I think some text noting this in the category should be enough : ) - jc37 17:41, 22 September 2014 (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.

Upmerge proposed rail infrastructure 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: alternative renames proposed at end, i.e.
For the record, the related UK proposal mentioned below was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_30. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge or rename (as already proposed for Category:Proposed railways in the United Kingdom; note that this category only contains two articles out of the many proposed rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom). The proposed categories will integrate better with the existing “Rail infrastructure” and “Proposed transport infrastructure” categories. Hugo999 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change the parent Category:Proposed railways to Category:Proposed railway lines which would be similar to Category:Proposed railway stations. Retain the "Proposed railway lines" categories for India, Norway and New Zealand but rename or upmerge the following categories with only one or two articles:
Also rename or upmerge to follow the usual "by continent" categories:
Oppose for the moment. You only want to rename or upmerge the categories containing very few entries and leave the rest intact. I just investigated the current category structure and noticed that the Category:Proposed public transport by country structure contains many rail articles which should be moved to corresponding proposed railways by country categories. For example: the Category:Proposed public transport in Australia contains more than 15 proposed railway lines. After moving these to the Category:Proposed railways in Australia I don't really see a strong case for upmerging. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to rename the “Proposed railways in … “ category, but if you think a new category Category:Proposed railway lines in Australia is warranted I am happy with that (or for that matter keeping the categories Proposed railway lines in Algeria, Denmark” ) Hugo999 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very unsure - From a personal point of view not even looking at the category trees and relationships - I dont like the infrastructure and proposed railway mix. Then the mix of public transport. Very subjective and intutively baed without reference to anything else - I do hope others comment with specific reference to the structure of things. satusuro 12:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: My proposal is to create/retain the category and subcategories Category:Proposed railway lines, NOT "Proposed railways". The category Category:Rail infrastructure has Category:Railway lines as a subcategory, hence the proposed category Category:Proposed railway lines is a subcategory of Category:Proposed rail infrastructure: NB Category:Railway stations is a subcategory of Category:Railway buildings and structures which is a subcategory of Category:Rail infrastructure Hugo999 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I agree with Aaron-Tripel. The same reasoning as for Australia also applies to other countries. It might be more meaningful to discuss if we really need the Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in country categories as an in-between layer with just two child categories in every country. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I performed a quick but not complete cleanup/survey of the Category:Proposed public transport by country structure. A lot of heavy rail is now moved to the proposed railways categories. (much work still needs to be done)
  • Indeed "proposed railways" categories should be renamed to "proposed railway lines" for consistency.
  • I think the Category:Proposed rail infrastructure by country structure is consistent with the Category:Rail infrastructure by country structure as Hugo999 already pointed out. Only a few "proposed" articles for a given country don't justify creating "proposed stations" or "proposed railways" categories and can be put in the "proposed infrastructure" category. When it grows larger over time it can be diffused.
In conclusion, the existing structure is just fine (except for some category renames). No need for upmerges, only category diffusion is appropriate.
Final comment: Many of the "proposed" articles are highly speculative or out of date and receive undue weight --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with latest proposal that "proposed railways" categories should be renamed to "proposed railway lines" for consistency. Also, in the USA: Category:Proposed railroads in the United States to be renamed into Category:Proposed railway lines in the United States.
Question Just to be sure - reacting on the mentioning of "heavy rail" - this category also contains light rail, doesn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
USA: "Railroad" is the correct US name, but "railroad" would exclude the US railways (urban and light rail) and vice versa: Usage of the terms railroad and railway. Personally I have no problem with Category:Proposed railroad lines in the United States.
As implied in my railroad answer above I found it difficult including light rail without discussion. Not only related to the USA. For example, a tram line (light rail) is not commonly called a "railway" line. Same issue for light suburban and metro/rapid transit lines. I need to look further into this. Any ideas welcome.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: At present there is no distinction between railroad and railway line categories in the USA for Category:Railway lines in the United States. So let's make its child Category:Proposed railway lines in the United States.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! It would probably be recommendable to categorize in the same manner in every country, so I would either favor:
  1. splitting this in every country (quite cumbersome though)
  2. or keep one category in the USA which can be named Category:Proposed railroads and railway lines in the United States
Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there are already light rail and streetcars listed in Category:Proposed railroads in the United States so the distinction I mentioned above doesn't seem to be an issue. So the child of Category:Railway lines in the United States can be Category:Proposed railway lines in the United States for uniformity.
Conclusion Only a few proposed railways by country categories need to be renamed--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Except possibly in US, people talk about railways, not rail infrastructure. A tramway is a form of light railway. If anything I would prefer to do a reverse merge and reverse rename, so that rail infrastructure categories became railway ones. The US might be an exception, due to the usage railroad rather than railway, but that should not affect parenting. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that you support the consensus so far of only renaming a few 'railways' into 'railway lines'? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2014 (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/2014_July_10&oldid=1138399437"