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:Closed. Since this was missed in closing the other nomination, a new discussion is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This failed to get closed when the rest of This nom of 26 August was closed, which would have resulted in its rename as now nominated. I havfe therefore removed the old CFR banner and renominated it. All sibling categories have been altered in this way already. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 21 September 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.
Subcategories of Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in India
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.
Category:Bishops of Medak to Category:Anglican Bishops of Medak
Category:Bishops of Nagpur to Category:Anglican Bishops of Nagpur
Category:Bishops of Nasik to Category:Anglican Bishops of Nasik
Category:Bishops of Tinnevelly to Category:Anglican Bishops of Tinnevelly
Nominator's rationale: Out of the above, Cochin, Bombay, Calcutta, Lucknow, Madras, Nagpur and Nasik have corresponding Roman Catholic sees, hence needed for disambiguation. For the others, to have uniformity in the names of the categories and also to match with the name of the parent category Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in India The Discoverer (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, pending clarification. This sounds fine in principle, so long as all these categories relate to the former Church of England in India, before the creation in 1970 of the Church of South India and Church of North India. Those post-1970s churches are not Anglican. My further concern is about the new titles. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them by the name of the denomination? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my !vote following clarifications below which satisfy my concerns. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The sample I checked all consisted of bishops with British names. The main articles all said that they preceded the establishment of the Church of India and Ceylon in 1927. It thus seems that BHG's qualms about the nom ought to be allayed. However the articles on the office or diocese are all short stubs, which at the very least ought to have a list of incumbents. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My understanding is that CSI and CNI are predominantly Anglican in character, and thus do not mind being called Anglican. I had once changed the title of a section involving these two from Anglican to Anglican-Protestant and it was reverted. Further, most of the categories involving these two use the word Anglican. I think in these cases the key is to understand 'Anglican' in terms of the Anglican Communion and not the Church of England. The Discoverer (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The united churches in the Indian subcontinent are full members of the Anglican Communion, so the comments by User:BrownHairedGirl don't really apply. During the process of amalgamation they were excluded from the Anglican Communion, but they have long since been readmitted. Their Bishops are full members of the Lambeth Conference and their Primates are full members of the Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting. If anyone is not clear about this, the official Anglican Communion list if Provinces is found on-line here. In general I prefer the current "Bishop of..." format; it is also appropriate in cases where two denominations have the same See titles, but one is the Established Church; however, in the case of India, where the denominations have equal legal status, and some See names are shared, it makes sense to use "Anglican Bishop of..." and "Roman Catholic Bishop of..." for purposes of disambiguation Timothy TitusTalk To TT 09:24, 1 October 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:Capital Ring
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should not be deleted. So I'm sorting through that list to see if there are any that merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Navigation is provided by the list in the main article. This is a series of 15 numbered walks where navigation is handled by the descriptions and the order in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This category ought to be called "Places on the Capital Ring" or something like that. If it was categorising articles on each of the 14 (approx) walks that make up the ring it would be a legitimate category, but it is not: it is categorising the places through which the walks pass. This is a classic misuse of categories: it is a performance (place) by performer (walking route), a kind of category that we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining to the locations involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I can't figure out the scope of this category. For example, why doesn't it include Woolwich foot tunnel, which is actually part of the ring? --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the history of this particular category's contents, but what can happen is that someone (who doesn't understand WP:DEFINING) creates a category and uses a list (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to identify articles that they then put in the category (including articles that don't even mention whatever it is the category is about!). If the list is of boroughs/villages that the trail passes through then an article about a tunnel won't have been placed in the category - even though the tunnel might be a better (by which I mean "less wrong") fit to the category than the boroughs. DexDor (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good insight. --Orlady (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That the trail passes through a place is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that place. DexDor (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the Capital Ring is a defining characteristic for the topics of the included articles. --Orlady (talk) 12:56, 24 September 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:Freedom Trail
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should not be deleted. So I'm sorting through that list to see if there are any that merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? No need to listify the contents since the article already lists the 17 sites which is interesting since the category contains 32 sites. Navigation is provided by the list in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Historical sites on the Freedom Trail, according to the headnote on the category. In this case the tail seems to be descinged to link a series of historical locations and monuments, which possibly takes this outside being a performance by performer type category. I am not entirely convinced myself: note thsi is the reverse of my vote on the Capital Ring (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being on/near a trail founded in 1951 is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of buildings, events etc from earlier centuries. DexDor (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Association with the Freedom Trail is a defining characteristic for these sites. The Freedom Trail is a unit of a U.S. National Park. It consists of a group of historic sites in Boston that had significance in the American Revolutionary War, including several that were significant in the war's first hostilities. The collection of historic sites that together form the Freedom Trail are analogous to a historic district, with the key difference that this particular collection of sites is more significant historically and better known as a group than at least 99.9% of the districts in Category:Historic districts in the United States. The national park unit could just as easily be called something like "Boston in the American Revolution National Heritage Area," but because somebody had the bright idea of marking a "walking trail" on the sidewalks and streets to help people visit these sites, for 62 years it has been called the "Freedom Trail". --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Category:Historic districts in the United States is intended for articles about historic districts (e.g. Beaverton Downtown Historic District), although, as with many categories, it currently contains lots of other stuff. This category is different; it's contents are entirely articles about historic buildings, events etc - not articles about the trail. DexDor (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the one biographical article I found in the category. --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trail is clearly defined by linking the sites along is route, but those sites are not defined by being on the Freedom Trail, which is a device of tourist marketing. I just checked the first 6 articles in the category:
Some of these articles are stubs, while others are quite well-developed. I think it's significant that in the better-developed articles (such as Boston Common, Massachusetts State House, Granary Burying Ground), the trail gets only a passing mention. In those cases, editors have had access to a decent set of sources which allow them to tell the story of the building rather than just noting a few factoids; and in each case, they give the Freedom Trail a passing mention (if at all). The trail is linked to in the succession box, which is quite adequate for navigation for those editors who want to view the articles through the lens of a tourist trail rather than as historical artefacts. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and while tourists may find a lot of useful material on Wikipedia, we should treat their needs as defining. The category is an inferior form of navigation to the list at Freedom Trail#Official_trail_sites, and while a navigation template may be appropriate, the category gives undue prominence to a device of tourist marketing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These things became notable for various reasons, they were put together as the rail because they were famous and notable. This is not like the Oregon Trail where it is the trail that connects the sites and events and forms and defines them. The trail is not defining to the places and they should not be categorized in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 2 October 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:Byzantine–Seljuk battles in Anatolia
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. This does bring the spelling into line with Category:Byzantine–Seljuq Wars. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Byzantine–Seljuk battles in Anatolia to Category:Battles of the Byzantine–Seljuq Wars
Nominator's rationale: on the one hand, to bring the cat in line with the spelling of "Seljuq" in current use, and on the other, the Byzantine–Seljuq wars were confined to Anatolia, so the distinction is pointless. Constantine ✍ 17:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nom needs to make a number of WP:RM and other CFD nominations to complete this change: for example, we have Seljuk architecture, whose text at one point uses the spelling Seljuq and Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I was under the (mistaken) impression that the move had been thorough across the related articles, since both Seljuq dynasty and Great Seljuq Empire use the "q" form. The move appears not to have been the subject of a centralized discussion covering all relevant articles; as you point out, it is certainly not universally implemented and seems to be controversial. However, I don't think that CfD is the right forum to raise this again. For the moment, let's satisfy consistency in this sub-topic, which is rather irrelevant to the "q"/"k" issue (my point being that the "in Anatolia" part is redundant), and the question on naming for the dynasty in general should be raised at some of the above, more relevant article talk pages.Constantine ✍ 16:25, 22 September 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:Born Of Osiris
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No need for category to hold one picture. Even if expanded it could only include the subcategory Category:Born of Osiris albums and the main article. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My only concern is that the file's only parent category is Category:Hardcore Punk from the United States which, itself, almost meets the WP:SMALLCAT deletion guidelines (also, it's the only "Hardcore Punk from Foo" category). Maybe categorize the Born Of Osiris file under Category:Born of Osiris albums and Category:Hardcore punk? LizRead!Talk! 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The category might also have the main article Born of Osiris and their doscography, but that is all adequately linked in the main article. There is thus no need for an Eponymous category. 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)----
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:Chemical compounds found in Acanthaceae
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.
Nominator's rationale: Containing a chemical compound is with few exceptions not defining. Recent discussions resulted in the deletion of Category:Chemical compounds found in animals [1] and its subcategories.[2] and Category:Phenolic compounds found in castoreum.[3] This nomination is for remaining categories of the form "chemical compounds found in foo" and "phenolic compounds found in bar" related to plants, bacteria, food, etc. The categories are not defining and mostly overlapping because the vast majority of chemical compounds are not unique to a particular taxonomic category. -- Kkmurray (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and more. Impossible categories. Wacko. The editor should be blocked or at least warned because they are spamming many articles with minutia-based cat's and tiny distracting details. "xyz is found in this plant" Living beings contain incredible numbers of chemical compounds (okay, maybe not viruses). --Smokefoot (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot: Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Civility? Can you provide a wiki policy or guideline that has been breached by the creation of these categories? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: the very act of creating this thoughtless collection of categories is uncivil and disruptive. It test the limits of civility to require experienced editors to consider ludicrous ideas. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per castoreum precedent. If this were about compounds for which the plant is the main commerical source, it might be different, but these are classic (illegitimate) Performance categories, or at least suffering from the same objectionable character: performer (compund) by Performance (plant). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC) (amended) Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the fact that a category relating to castoreum had been deleted (which is why the category is a redlink where the nom refers to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each plant and each animal contains a lot of chemical substances, some known, some unknown and organism of the same type exposed to different environments can contains different substances or the same substance but in different concentration. It means that in theory we have to put each chemical substances in a lot of categories. So it makes no sense to categorize the chemical substances in a such way. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 15:12, 22 September 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:Barristers' Chambers
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.
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. All entries that were here are at Category:Barristers' chambers in the United Kingdom (please also comment on whether that should be 'in' or 'of'). I moved all entries as barristers' chambers exist elsewhere, and the capitalisation of this category was inappropriate. Cheers. Qwerty Binary (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. WP:TROUT the nominator for performing an out-of-process category move, and then coming to a consensus-forming discussion asking editors to rubber-stamp what had already been done. The fact that the nominator has doubts about the new title illustrates why this sort of thing is best done by a proposal here to rename the category. That way, if a renaming was appropriate, then a consensus could be formed on the new name before the articles were moved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put them back—Yes, there are Barristers' chambers in other countries. However, there are currently only 1820 articles in total. Why does it need diffusing? Additionally, should it be decided that a UK category is appropriate at this point, Category:Barristers' Chambers will need to remain as a parent category for the various national categories as articles are created for them. I note that after making this nomination Qwerty_Binary then added the category proposed for deletion to two chambers in Sydney. What do they really want to have happen? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent category There undoubtedly are Barristers' chambers in a number of countries as the British legal system was used in much of the British Commonwealth, we just don't have the articles yet. A geographic split makes sense as although the idea of the Barrister and the Solicitor (the UK has a split legal system) was exported and still exists elsewhere, it has since evolved so that Barristers' chambers in one country may be quite different animals from those in another. of seems more correct to me. The capitalisation of the C of Chambers was just a typo. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The correctly capitalised alternative already exists with the appropriate UK subcategory: Category:Barristers' chambers. The parent "law firms" is strictly not correct, as each barrister operates independently, but sharing a clerk and other administrative staff, but I do not think this does too much harm: it is near enough not to matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That correctly capitalised version was created by the nominator a few minutes before making this nomination. It's a pity that they didn't have the courtesy to notify the discussion of this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 22 September 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:Articles overusing colours
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.
Propose renaming Category:Articles overusing colours to Category:Wikipedia articles overusing colours
Nominator's rationale: Per convention/common practice of naming maintenance categories. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to rename not delete. Overuse of colour is not concerned with the number of colours, but with accessibility issues when non-default colours are used. To take your examples on a case by case basis: Nowhere in List of Total Wipeout episodes is there any explanation of what those five colours mean; nor is there any indication to the blind person that those particular cells are somehow different from the others. Who Wants to Be a Superhero? (season 2) has a colour key in the form of coloured text, some of which (example: yellow indicates that they were nominated for elimination) fails WP:CONTRAST: yellow on white is a contrast ratio of 1.07, which fails Web Content Accessibility Guidelines level 2.0 (WCAG 2). The coloured text does not associate the four colours with the codes used in the table (IN NOM OUT WIN). The blue table cells have a contrast ratio of 2.44, and the green a ratio of 4.09, so both fail WCAG 2. The red cells, with a contrast ratio of 5.25, are WCAG 2 AA Compliant but not WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. Who Wants to Be a Superhero? (season 1) does have a colour key, but again that doesn't associate the codes used in the table IN NOM OUT WIN with the four colours. In Tim Eyman, there is no explanation of why green and red text has been used; further, the red text might be confused with red links. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once a category is brought to CFD all options are on the table, including deletion if consensus emerges for it. If the issue is whether or not various colors meet some standard of accessibility then the category is a misnomer. It's not whether articles use too many colors; it's whether they use colors outside some specified guideline. If a category for such articles is deemed worthwhile then it should be renamed something like Category:Wikipedia articles not in compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. If it truly is about "too many colors" then the category should still be deleted and color usage within a particular article should be determined via normal editing processes. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the rename. I've never been a fan of putting "Wikipedia" at the front of category names: for cats that are not part of the encyclopedia, we can make them hidden, as has been done here, which takes up much less space. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Regardless, it's a good idea to standardize the names of maintenance/cleanup categories so they're more easily findable from the search bar. Hmm... Maybe an RfC is in order after this closes, regardless of outcome, because we have "Category:Articles needing x" (e.g., 1, 2) and "Category:Wikipedia articles in need of x" (e.g., 3), "Category: Articles to be x" (e.g., 4, which could become Category:Articles needing/in need of expansion/expanding). Thoughts? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: please read Redrose's reply, above. This is an important category to have as it helps improve accessibility. Also, I really don't think WP:OR applies here. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts....William 12:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep the category, very helpful for finding wp:accessibility issues, no opinion on renaming it. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Orlady makes a good point below, and I'd support a rename to something more precise. Ibadibam (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the issues being raised in this discussion have to deal with the "overuse" portion of the title. Would changing it to "Articles misusing colours", and editing the corresponding template to reflect that, be a better idea? That seems to be what the template is actually being used for. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Misusing" is still a subjective criterion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subjectivity is fine here, because this is not a content category and thus not subject to WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Lots of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues are subjective. These categories are applied when an editor judges that an article needs maintenance, and removed when consensus concludes that the issue has been resolved. Ibadibam (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that administrative categories are exempt from overcategorization principles? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not explicitly stated, but I think it's inherent that WP:OC deals with content categories that are based on verifiable properties of the subjects of their member articles. If administrative categories were subject to those guidelines, we'd have to throw out every stub category for subjectivity, since there's no objective standard that defines a "stub". WP:OC is a content guideline, and trying to apply it to admin categories is like trying to apply GNG to templates. That said, if you just want the name to be clearer, we could try to make it parallel Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users, and call it Category:Articles with text not understandable by color blind users, or something like that. Ibadibam (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is overcategorisation being brought in? AFAICT the first mention was in Ibadibam's post of 19:28, 23 September 2013, which seemed to be a reply to something, but I can't tell what. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Pepsi argues for deletion because the category's inclusion criteria are subjective, which is proscribed by WP:Overcategorization. Ibadibam (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category isn't used directly (or it shouldn't be, anyway); it's used to track the use of a cleanup template. There are other cleanup templates whose use is necessarily subjective, such as ((refimprove)). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Redrose and Ibadibam said. Cleanup templates are not bound to subjectivity guidelines in the same way that articles are. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to be less judgmental, for example: "Articles with possible visual accessibility issues". --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the current name being a bit harsh. "Visual accessibility issues" is a broader scope than this category covers. Let's find something agreeable along those lines, though. Ibadibam (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a renaming to a target different than the one I proposed in this nomination, but I don't think that one fits the intent of this category/associated template, which specifically relates to colors. What about "Articles misusing colors"? Or perhaps, "Articles possibly misusing colors"? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Articles in which use of colors may limit accessibility"? I see two reasons for this kind of wording. These cleanup templates presumably are added by users who think they have identified an issue, but can't resolve it themselves, so it is probably accurate to identify this as a possible issue (and that actually could encourage users to flag more problems). Also, because some Wikipedia article creators/developers are known to become explosively upset over seemingly inconsequential things (in this case, I imagine a rant like "how dare you tell me I don't know how to use colors!?!"), it seems to me that it's desirable to name cleanup categories in as "diplomatic" a fashion as possible. PS - I'm thinking I should add List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes to this category, since some of the colored backgrounds in the table headings make it impossible to see the footnotes. --Orlady (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you do add that article to the category, please be sure you do so by using ((overcolored)), rather than manually placing the category on the page. Also, I'm not sure about that category title... It just seems overly long-winded/circuitous to me. If we want to go the diplomatic route, "Articles possibly misusing colors" is the way to go. Keep in mind that the template ((overcolored)) is what people are going to see, not necessarily the category. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Orlady: I took a look at the article you linked, and I'm not seeing the locations where the backgrounds make it hard to see the footnotes. Could you clarify? Thanks! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Errrmmff... The same user who sets the colors in that article also persists in deleting reference citations. (That's another ongoing issue.) I've restored several deleted citations. Now see if you can find the callout for footnote 4. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see it. Thanks for that! I see what you mean. Lemme see if I can't find a better color. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on that article. Not only did you fix that issue, but the overall appearance is much better. For me, articles like that one illustrate the value of this cleanup template and category. Issues with use of colors in articles are one of those areas where users can detect that problems exist, but may not have the technical knowledge to fix the problems. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not purely subjective - it's objective. Treat the first three bullets at WP:COLOUR as a checklist, and if the article doesn't satisfy all of them, it's overcoloured. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the idea of a Category:Articles overusing split inifinitives is irrelevant to this discussion, Carlossuarez46. There's no guideline or policy that disallows the use of split infinitives. There is, however, a a guideline about the use of colors, designed to improve accessibility for colorblind users reading Wikipedia, as well as visually impaired/blind users who use screen readers to listen to Wikipedia. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it is an unseen administrative category and has clear rules on what goes in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the beginning of a cleanup. I fully accept the reasons for this, however I don't see any proof that this is being used correctly since the inclusion criteria is subjective. Even if you read WP:CONTRAST there are multiple options offered (what is the difference between AA and AAA?). If you use Tool A and it passes but fails using Tool B does it get included? I also have serious concerns about how useful this category is since most of the content is from 2011, or over 2 years ago! One can get the impression that there is more effort being made here to retain the category then to fix the problems. If recreated, with clearer inclusion guidelines, then a name along the lines of Category:Wikipedia articles with color contrast issues or something simlar should be used to better indicate that that this is a maintenance category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "there is more effort being made here to retain the category then to fix the problems", yet since discovering this category, I've spent several hours working on improving the use of color in the articles I found there—far more than I've spent on this CfD page. Also, yes, WP:CONTRAST gives links to two tools. Both tools do the same thing, and are based on WCAG 2.0, which are a specific, quantitative set of guidelines. If you'll read the article on WCAG, which is linked in this comment, and on WP:CONTRAST, you'll see the difference between AA and AAA briefly explained, and you'll also find a link to follow to view the quantitative guidelines for each rating. Both the tools linked do the job of aiding an editor in figuring out whether the use of colors in an article meets WCAG 2.0 guidelines. It's two ways of reaching the same end point, and having links to two tools ensures that if one goes down, there's still a chance the other will be up. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest that all discussion regarding deletion of this category be moved to a TfD for Template:Overcoloured. This category is merely adjunct to the template, and should continue to exist as long as the template does. Most of the objections I've read here really deal with the use of the template itself, not the hidden category that the template uses to group the pages it's tagged with. Ibadibam (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One option is to keep the template and drop the category. The what links here works well in a lot of cases to find and fix problems. But if the template goes the category also should be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegaswikian: Why delete the category but not the template? Most (if not all) cleanup templates have an associated maintenance category. That maintenance category serves as a location for editors specifically interested in fixing that problem to start. It makes it easier for editors doing cleanup to find these articles to fix, and therefore the article gets fixed sooner. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't need both. I don't see why looking in a category to find the articles is much different then seeing what links to a template. Given the suggestion above to put the template up for deletion, there does not appear to be a strong case to keep both. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't need both, then why is a tracking category a universal feature of cleanup templates? Consider Category:All articles lacking sources - should that be taken out of ((unreferenced))? A category that is larger than a certain size can trigger a backlog. What links here will not do that. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 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:Labor
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. I read this two times and can not see where either side presents a clear case to rename. I expect that this will be back here in the future. But after two months, this needs to be closed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While this is a WP:ENGVAR change, I'm proposing this because the majority of major articles on this topic use the "labour" spelling. See labour and the pages to which it links: aside from the irrelevant ones such as Josef Labor, the only ones using "labor" are labor force and labor relations; everything else uses "labour". Speedy criterion C2C reads "A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree" — while the labor force and relations prevent this from being an unambiguous convention and thus prevent the speedy rename, the dominance of "labour" is enough that we should rename the category to fit the large majority of relevant articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposed rename violates all understanding of Engvar rules. To change this would be to proactively endorse one spelling over another, which would be telling Americans they spell things wrong. This is not the British Wikipedia, and we should not make changes that would imply it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am very well aware of WP:ENGVAR; I would appreciate it if you would pay attention to the proposal instead of putting words in my mouth. Policy says that categories follow articles, and the articles currently use the British spelling. My awareness of WP:ENGVAR is one reason I've made this proposal, because "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary", and you're violating this by attempting to force these articles to use one variant in their text and another in their categories. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match main article Labour economics. I accept that ENGVAR allows the possiblibilty both of UK and US spellings, but several of the articles use the UK version. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a precedent in that Labor redirects to Labour and this move was apparently decided in 2009. But I think you need to look beyond the article and look at the category proposed for a change, Category:Labor...here there are quite a few child categories that use "labor" rather than "labour" and this undermines your argument, Nyttend. LizRead!Talk! 16:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match articles. The cfd community was very eager to change Category:Yogurts when the article name was changed and even rallied behind out-of-process renames. Oculi (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:RETAIN. Roughly equal representation of Labor/Labour both in articles and categories on this topic indicates that no English variety has been established. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose No good reason or good evidence presented to support the change. An examination of the contents of the category (subcats and articles) shows that 'labour' is mostly used for British-English based items and not as a general rule. Hmains (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first in time is first in right otherwise we end up fighting these forever. One could just as easily requested a move of the page and all those in favor of harmony would be pointing the other way, so very elastic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way it has ever worked. I don't think you can find a single case where an article has been moved to a different English variety to match the variety of the corresponding category. There are, on the other hand, a number of cases where the category has been renamed to match the variety of the article name. First in time is first in right in article space; category space has indeed been "more elastic", and rightly so, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as above per MOS:RETAIN. No evidence that the English spelling is somehow preferable, as an unexceptional word the usage in Am-Eng and Brit-Eng will be similar to other words, and our practice then is to retain the first spelling.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For articles—yes—but it hasn't always worked this way with categories. With categories, we've often followed the spelling of the main article, and the main article is subject to the "first in time" practice. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match the category to its articles. Canuck89(chat with me) 10:00, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
Support matching the title of this topic category to the titles of its head articles, per the category naming guideline. Although MOS:RETAIN does call for the initial variety of English to be retained when there is no compelling reason to make a change, it also recognizes the importance of internal consistency. In this case, quite simply, there is no compelling reason to be inconsistent. (Not that it really matters, but... I spell the word "labor".) -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:23, 2 December 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:National Lacrosse League venues
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:Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:National Lacrosse League venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This (newly created) category is categorizing articles about buildings by one of the uses to which the building has been put, which for a building that has had many uses is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. There is already a category Category:Indoor lacrosse venues in the United States which is closer to being a defining characteristic. Most/all of the articles in this category are already in many categories for different types of events that have taken place (example); we should be reducing this category clutter, not increasing it. Multi-purpose sports venues should be categorized in categories like "Sports venues in <place>", not under a category for every different type of sporting event that has ever taken place there. If the category creator thinks WP should have a list of venues that have been used for NLL events then they should create such a list. DexDor (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Would this rationale also apply to, for example, Category:National Basketball Association venues? This may sound WAXy, but it seems to me we either should or should not have categories for Foo Sports League venues. Trying to pick and choose which leagues are important enough seems like an invitation to POV. --BDD (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean Category:National Basketball Association venues, yes it would. The nominator would do well to nominate all of the venues-by-league categories together, rather than singling out one of them. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; we have plenty of league venues categories (e.g. Category:Ice hockey venues by league for a different sport), and this proposal would amount to making a hole in the system. Consistency is highly important, and you've also not presented evidence that this isn't a defining characteristic. [ec with BDD] Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Defining characteristic" can be pretty subjective, but given that typical stadia infoboxes include tenants and their respective leagues, I think we already treat this as defining in that sense. --BDD (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete (or heavily purge) -- A sport venues category is appropriate when the venue is used wholly or mainly for one sport - possibly two, a summer one and a winter one. However, the three articles that I checked were all multi-purpose stadia that may at some stage have been used for lacrosse, though this was not obvious from the article. We had a similar debate over snooker venues a while back. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with BDD and Nyttend. This category can't be considered separately from categories involving venues for other sporting leagues. I might agree with deletion if this was a general, catch-all category for venues that had been used at some point for lacrosse matches but these are locations that are used for an organized league, the National Lacrosse League. If the decision is to delete, I hope it is listified like List of Major League Lacrosse stadiums but that will involve the compiler gathering some significant background information on each of the venues. LizRead!Talk! 16:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have countless X League venues categories. 117Avenue (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most/all of the keep !votes above are arguing that as there are other similar categories (which I don't disagree with), instead of actually responding to the points raised in the CFD nomination about this category. A group nomination that attempted to cover all inappropriate categorization of venues would (IMO, based on experience at CFD) just descend into arguments that yet more categories should be added to the nom and/or arguments that some of the categories in the nom should be considered separately. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if hosting Olympics is not defining, surely this is trivial too. Performer by performance analogue. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For most of these places lacrosse is not the primary use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Won't that be a reason for categorizing them together? 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't categorize by every use, just by primary, defining uses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a form of overcategorization of venues by event. It is one thing to categorize venues by the sport(s) they host (e.g., a football stadium, ice hockey arena, baseball park, etc.), since that describes their primary function. It is something else altogether to categorize venues by league, where one venue is used by multiple leagues over its life. It would be appropriate to listify the category (to List of National Lacrosse League venues) prior to deleting it. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:38, 2 December 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:Wikipedia training For Ambassadors
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.
Possibly keep The contents seem to be using "For Ambassadors" almost as a brand name. It thus would seem that the presnet capitalisation is correct, but possibly there should be some punctation before For. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The naming convention I used for the Wikipedia training categories was to name the categories after the subpages for the corresponding training, so in this case Wikipedia:Training/For Ambassadors. In retrospect, it might have been a better idea not to capitalize the first letter of the subpages, but at this point it's coded into the templates to base the category on the subpage, so changing it would be much more trouble than it's worth (as it would involve moving hundreds of subpages).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 21 September 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:Documentary films about Elvis Presley
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.
Propose merging Category:Documentary films about Elvis Presley to all parents
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge to all parents. Currently has only one member. I suppose that maybe if there were more members this could be useful, but at this point it is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Jerry Pepsi -- obviously right. I doubt there are enough films to mean that we need to split documentaries out. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per arguments supplied above. Makes sense to me and is unlikely to cause disruption to the Presley category structure. LizRead!Talk! 16:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge In general we avoid one-article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 27 September 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.