Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 14: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:28, 15 April 2011 editEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits →Category:Mexican–American War: WP:TITLECHANGES?← Previous edit Revision as of 21:31, 15 April 2011 edit undoDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers476,376 edits →Category:Mexican–American WarNext edit →
Line 89: Line 89:
*'''Oppose'''—the category and all of its article titles have been stable since 2008. The dash adheres with the explicit rules at the style guide, and with many authorities. It does not particularly matter that many sources use a hyphen; many sources use bad grammar and sloppy, inconsistent English, too. WP's practice WRT the dash is well-established, and ] explicitly says not to move from one "controversial" form to another. Stability is clearly a better option when there is so much disagreement about the single change that was made (without proper consensus, in my view). The matter, also, needs to be discussed centrally at the style guide talk page, where such issues have been debated and resolved for years. ] ] 15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''—the category and all of its article titles have been stable since 2008. The dash adheres with the explicit rules at the style guide, and with many authorities. It does not particularly matter that many sources use a hyphen; many sources use bad grammar and sloppy, inconsistent English, too. WP's practice WRT the dash is well-established, and ] explicitly says not to move from one "controversial" form to another. Stability is clearly a better option when there is so much disagreement about the single change that was made (without proper consensus, in my view). The matter, also, needs to be discussed centrally at the style guide talk page, where such issues have been debated and resolved for years. ] ] 15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::]? Controversial rename shouldn't be done until you have reached consensus via a RM. In this case, two RMs were made. The second RM failed to get consensus to get back to the dash. --] (]) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC) ::]? Controversial rename shouldn't be done until you have reached consensus via a RM. In this case, two RMs were made. The second RM failed to get consensus to get back to the dash. --] (]) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::Also, the first RM failed to get consensus for the move to the hyphen. ] (]) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:31, 15 April 2011

< April 13 April 15 >

April 14

Category:Soul-jazz musicians

Propose renaming Category:Soul-jazz musicians to Category:Soul jazz musicians, along with subcategories:
Category:Soul-jazz musicians by instrument to Category:Soul jazz musicians by instrument
Category:Soul-jazz drummers to Category:Soul jazz drummers
Category:Soul-jazz flautists to Category:Soul jazz flautists
Category:Soul-jazz guitarists to Category:Soul jazz guitarists
Category:Soul-jazz keyboardists to Category:Soul jazz keyboardists
Category:Soul-jazz organists to Category:Soul jazz organists
Category:Soul-jazz pianists to Category:Soul jazz pianists
Category:Soul-jazz saxophonists to Category:Soul jazz saxophonists
Category:Soul-jazz trombonists to Category:Soul jazz trombonists
Category:Soul-jazz trumpeters to Category:Soul jazz trumpeters
Category:Soul-jazz vocalists to Category:Soul jazz vocalists
Nominator's rationale: New name would simply be consistent with the main article's name, soul jazz (though the sources for that article use either "soul jazz" or "soul-jazz" (or both)). Gyrofrog (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per principles of English grammar, "soul jazz" (unhyphenated) is appropriate when the term is a noun, but when it is used as an adject "soul-jazz FOO" (hyphenated) is appropriate, because "soul-jazz" is a compound adjective. Good Ol’factory 03:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Documentaries about psychology

Propose renaming Category:Documentaries about psychology to Category:Documentaries about mental health
Nominator's rationale: I came across this top-level category for all documentaries about psychology -- that is, documentary films, documentary television one-offs and series, radio documentaries and web documentaries -- and added two sub-cats of my own: Category:Documentary films about psychology and my pre-existing Category:Documentary films about mental illness. I can see I'm making things worse and not better with this split. Suggest renaming and simplifying the branch to "Foo about mental health," which removes the subjective question of whether it's a film about "psychology" or "mental illness." I don't see the need to add Category:Films about psychiatry -- which I added as a parent -- to the deal, but maybe others do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment At least Discovering Psychology is about psychology in general and not only mental health, so I don't think "metal health" would be the correct name if you want to merge the categories. —Ruud 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There probably won't be too many documentaries of any type about the profession of psychology but you're right, any that do exist wouldn't fit. Category:Mental health is a subcat of Category:Psychology so I suppose we could rename to Category:Documentaries about psychology and a sole subcat Category:Documentary films about psychology. Or do nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) by county

Propose renaming Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) by county to Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in Ireland by county
Nominator's rationale: There are few parliamentary constituencies in Ireland that were (A) created since the declaration of the Republic in 1949 and (B) abolished since that time. Most articles in the parent category refer to constituencies in the states before the declaration of the Republic (e.g. UK, Kingdom of Ireland etc). Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Support A no-brainer. Which, given this is Misplaced Pages, means the proposal will likely fail. Sarah777 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose proposed name. Parent cat is Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic), it should be Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic) by county. Also other cats at the same level have historic in brackets at end. Also, I don't understand why the nominator is proposing to move the category to an article! Snappy (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mexican–American War

Propose renaming Category:Mexican–American War to Category:Mexican-American War
Nominator's rationale: From dash to hyphen, to fit the renaming of the main page of the category after two requests for move one two. A previous request to move all war articles from dash to hyphen was rejected here, and the move was denied, but months later someone else moved it anyways via speedy rename . Sorry, that speedy was correct because the main article of the category had been renamed over a year ago .

Also rename the subcats:

Enric Naval (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the chances that we will ever come to more of a consensus than right now? There are no pending move discussions, it seems like the perfect time to rename categories after the main article. –CWenger (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I figure as long as people are interested in continuing the discussion, it is a valid discussion. I'm not aware of a time limit for reaching consensus, so it takes as a long as it takes. Personally, I find 99% of the reasoning to be silly, but that very recent argument made by Dicklyon (i hate that username) was actually very logical and made a great rationale for why a dash is a better option, whereas I was previously ambivalent about it. If someone had arbitrarily closed discussion because they got sick of discussing before then, I wouldn't have come to a decision. To me, pushing for artificial timelines on long gone subjects makes no sense, because the Mexican/American War isn't going anywhere. -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You hate my username? Does that mean you hate my real name, too? Of the lack of capitalization of the L? If I recall right, I entered it all lowercase like in my various other accounts, but wikimedia gave me a capital D for free. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I certainly don't hate or dislike anything else related to you. I'm sorry I brought it up, and I hadn't intended for it to become a distraction. -- Avanu (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Avanu: Whatever Dicklyon makes of your gratuitous remark about his username, I take offence at it here on a page where we are transacting serious business for the Project. I ask that you delete it, preferably with an apology. If you are late coming to an understanding of the basic points he has had to raise yet again, for those who are slow to understand how modern punctuation works, think carefully before you compound a situation that is already tense. When you have fixed that, others might do similarly, and erase this distracting side issue from the discussion. Noetica 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree with you about keeping the discussion open as long as necessary. But what I don't agree with is having blatant inconsistencies while that discussion plays out, as is the case right now. Everything related to the Mexican~American War (including these categories) should have been renamed along with the main article, but they weren't due to administrative oversight. It should be trivial to rectify that but instead those who opposed the original move are fighting for every inch. –CWenger (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point there. Well, whatever way it ends up, I won't be too worried. I just hope people can continue to stay civil and work together. I think Noetica is probably willing to do so, and I'm kind of thinking Enric is being a bit pushy at the moment, but maybe things will be fine. -- Avanu (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Avanu: don't patronise me, especially after your own incivility that I mention above. I have worked for more than one full-time week, on several fronts, to repair the damage from recent actions by Enric Naval and PMAnderson. It is not for you to judge or perhaps even to grasp what you are dealing with here. Your support is useful; but try for an understanding of the bigger picture. When you done have your homework, your more considered comments will be welcome. Noetica 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose – that's an awful lot of moving to do for dislike of the "damned dashes" as Enric puts it. The category is already named to match most of its articles, and self-consistency and MOS-consistency could be restored easily by moving back the one that got moved without consensus. Nominator is objecting to the move of the category to match the main article in 2009, when the main article had been stable at en dash for over a year, yet he wants to use that reason to move a whole lot of stuff now, shortly after a hotly-contested move. Is he serious? Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hum, you are right, I am striking that part. If the main article of a category is renamed, then the usual thing is to rename the category. I'm happy that we are in agreement on that. Yes, I would have waited a bit longer, but one editor was using the mismatch in the category name as an argument to edit-war in the article . --Enric Naval (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: This is not a time to be upsetting the intricate fabric of categories underlying millions of articles. First, despite what CWenger says above ("There are no pending move discussions"), there IS a pending move discussion at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War. Note the en dash. Second, no matter how that RM ends, the huge majority of related categories and articles (with the general form "X~Y War") have an en dash. Third, that style is in accord with WP:MOS: Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style, which is our central resource for recommendations about punctuation. No other guideline or policy rules on punctuation for cases like these. Choice of name is one thing, directed by policy at WP:TITLE; punctuation for a name once it has been chosen is quite separate. WP:TITLE falls silent on punctuation, and WP:MOS takes up the story. If anyone disputes these facts, those disputes should be taken to larger arenas than this one. In the meantime, no decision in favour of anomalous changes to our categories is warranted. Please: let's be patient; let's work systematically with larger issues before petty ones; and above all, let's work together. Noetica 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This is the spelling that reliable sources actually use; I've searched down Google Books' list of books and failed to find any that don't hyphenate. (There is one where Google's OCR has changed it to a space, but the actual scan is clear.) Categories (because category redirects don't work perfectly) should be especially careful to use the spelling that almost every reader will expect; not that used by a handful of careless or eccentric books and insisted on by two or three editors against usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That's odd. I didn't have any trouble finding several in Google books that use the en dash (you have to actually look, since the OCR converts them to hyphens usually). Nobody would use an en dash from carelessness. Some use spaces, too. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to challenge the result of the RM, this is not the place for doing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I was challenging it here, just pointing out that PMAnderson may not know what he's talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
By what authors? I checked about thirty, and found none, but the search results may have changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support whatever the main article uses: Main articles, related articles, and categories should all use the same naming conventions. Right now the main article uses a hyphen so the categories should too. Any future move requests should mention it is applicable to all related titles and closing admins should ensure this is carried out, even asking for help to make sure they didn't miss anything for big jobs like this. –CWenger (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    A sensible rule; it is unlikely that any of the factors which should be balanced change from the article to the category. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—the category and all of its article titles have been stable since 2008. The dash adheres with the explicit rules at the style guide, and with many authorities. It does not particularly matter that many sources use a hyphen; many sources use bad grammar and sloppy, inconsistent English, too. WP's practice WRT the dash is well-established, and WP:TITLE explicitly says not to move from one "controversial" form to another. Stability is clearly a better option when there is so much disagreement about the single change that was made (without proper consensus, in my view). The matter, also, needs to be discussed centrally at the style guide talk page, where such issues have been debated and resolved for years. Tony (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:TITLECHANGES? Controversial rename shouldn't be done until you have reached consensus via a RM. In this case, two RMs were made. The second RM failed to get consensus to get back to the dash. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, the first RM failed to get consensus for the move to the hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)