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 per variant 1 (to "School Name alumni"). I find the tertiary institutions precedent persuasive. In addition, this requires only three categories to be renamed to achieve consistency.
Ruslik_
Zero15:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Currently there are only a small number of Canadian schools categories but they're split down the middle on format and a standard system is desirable before we have too many more. I don't know if "alumni" is the preferred term or not but if not then the parent cat can be renamed as well.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support the 'or' option (use 'Alumni of' throughout). ('Athol Murray College of Notre Dame alumni' is unwieldy.) I am assuming 'alumni' is in widespread use in schools in Canada.
Occuli (
talk)
13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)reply
If "alumni" is widely used for former school pupils in Canada (it is not in the UK, where it only applies to tertiary institutions) then rename to the "Alumni of Foo" category names, which are less clumsy and look a lot better. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Based on the Candian tertiary institutions precedent I would say that renaming with School Name alumni is best here. I would also point out that these names are not unruly the way some claim, since alumni is always when on the end tacked on to the end of an institution name, so that alumni is always modifying everything before it, we never modify alumni in category names.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:31, 12 February 2011 (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 protected pages with expiry expired
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.
No objection from me. I imagine this category is no longer used due to some template rewrite at some point. Can probably be speedied. --
MZMcBride (
talk)
00:19, 29 January 2011 (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:Military of Hong Kong
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. Since Hong Kong does have some military of its own, the category is legit. But articles herein might be repositioned in another category.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't know if there is a standard of/in nomenclature for military categories, but this one reads wrong as "of" instead of "in". Hong Kong has no military OF it's own, its state (Britain or China) has forces IN the territory.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
21:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment HK does have paramilitary units in the police... And the category also contain WWII material, where HK had its own volunteer unit.
65.93.15.80 (
talk)
04:57, 30 January 2011 (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:Ambassadors of Pakistan to Bahrain
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. This is part of a major categorization scheme for which this article needs this category. Discussions about whether to impose limitations on it probably should be handled on a global basis..--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We do not normally create categories for ambassadors of one country to another unless there are many notable. in this case there is only one which hardly warrants a category.
LibStar (
talk)
12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete/Upmerge A lot of times I don't have a conceptual problem with a category tree but then I look at actual usage. The large majority of subcats under
Category:Ambassadors of Pakistan are 1 or 2 articles. I did add notices to both the creator's talk page as well as WikiProject Pakistan to get more opinions though, since I don't work in this topic area.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
04:25, 31 January 2011 (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:Łódź Ghetto
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:Rename. Suggest renaming to match the main article
Ghetto Litzmannstadt. A redirect should remain on the nominated category since it is a valid alternate name. (There was some talk on the discussion page over a year ago about moving this to
Lodz Ghetto, but it hasn't come to anything. Article has now been at this name since Feb 2008.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep The article appears to have been renamed and renamed again several times over the last five years, though there is very little discussion at
Talk:Ghetto Litzmannstadt. "Lodz Ghetto" has more than ten times as many Ghits and follows the more familiar Modern name or common English name + Ghetto format observed by most articles, as noted by BC, so it is the article name that deserves more thorough review.-
choster (
talk)
18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment (nom). Isn't it interesting how no one cares to attempt to move an article until there is a movement to standardize naming across categories and article? Starting a category nom seems to be quite an effective way to get users to make up their minds about where an article belongs.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, you're the nominator, and you've found the discrepancies, so why didn't you attempt to move the article? I find it interesting that you haven't attempted to move the articles.
65.93.15.80 (
talk)
05:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Because I do not want to be involved in that, mostly because I don't care. Users need to decide one way or the other—I don't care which they choose, but they need to choose.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't see how this is any different from putting up a requested move. I also don't see a good reason to choose a bad name over initiating a requested move in the first place.
65.93.12.249 (
talk)
18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)reply
If you can't tell the difference, I'm not sure I can help you. Quick recap: I don't care what the name of the article is. It was stable for well over a year, so I proposed that the category be renamed to match the article. That's where my involvement began and ended. If users decide that they want the articel moved, that's good for them, but I don't really care one way or the other, as long as in the end the category name matches the article name. I don't propose article renames when I don't care if the article is renamed or not.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Update: the discussion of at the article seems to be rejecting Ghetto Litzmannstadt, but now there's a discussion of whether to go for Łódź or Lodz (if the latter is chosen, then the categories will presumably lose the diacritics too).--
Kotniski (
talk)
00:05, 1 February 2011 (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:Provinces in coastal area of China
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: A category with no parent article, which does not appear to correspond to any recognized category tree within
Category:Regions of China. The category description reads like
WP:OR. If kept surely this would need to be renamed as there is no single coastal "area" along that long coastline, is there? (Oh, and I'm pretty sure this is banned user Mac).
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
05:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - There are a number of official schemes used by the Chinese government and others to divide Chinese provinces into regions, but putting all coastal provinces into one region is not one of them. I think that this category gives the wrong idea about the level of homogeneity among these disparate provinces.--
Danaman5 (
talk)
04:45, 29 January 2011 (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:Renault Z.E.
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: Another green car micro-category that I believe was created by a new sock of indef banned user Mac (the case is at SPI now). At any rate, delete per
WP:OC#SMALL as the parent article
Renault Z.E. shows there is little room for growth.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
04:35, 28 January 2011 (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:Literary journals
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:Merge. Duplicate categories. While one could make an argument that the distinction between literary journals and literary magazines is one of the level of sophistication or that journals have more of an academic bent to them, the distinction is so slight as to only create problems as far as categorization goes. The article is at
literary magazine and
literary journal redirects there.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. Those journals that also publish studies on literature (as opposed to publishing literature itself) could be categorized in a new category "literature-studies journals". All periodicals publishing exclusively fiction and/or poetry should be categorized as (literary) magazines, as they are not peer-reviewed academic journals (even if they have their roots in some university department). --
Crusio (
talk)
09:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. There are definitely some of these that feel quite a bit more like journals than magazines. I think I favor a more careful split rather than a merge.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:03, 11 February 2011 (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:Anoxic basins
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:Rename. A difficult one. This is not about basins per say, but rather bodies of water that contain
anoxic waters. Having said that, I'm open to seeing if there is a better name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that this can exist in pockets within the larger bodies, so while your suggestion is an improvement, it may not fix all of the problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Many lakes are anoxic, if you take it that way, since many lakes do not turn over, and have deep layers low in oxygen, are we going to fill this category with thousands of lakes?
65.93.15.80 (
talk)
05:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not opposed but it does not match the lead article. Would it also make sense to rename the main article? I think your proposal makes sense to a lay person.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:02, 1 February 2011 (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:Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. The "administrative rather than geographical" argument is stronger than the "it's surrounded by water" argument.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. "In" makes more sense when the place is a country unto itself, as with the Isle of Man. For islands that are parts of other countries, as with the Isle of Wight, "on" is probably better.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) [but only if we are referring to a geographical feature as opposed to an administrative unit, as explained by Mattingbgn below
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The Isle of Wight is also a county and "in X" reads better than "on X" when referring to a county IMO. The parishes in question are in effect administrative sub-divisions of the county so it is pretty clear that in this case the category relates to "Isle of Wight" as a county rather than as a geographic feature. --
Mattinbgn (
talk)
03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support -- The Isle of Wight is an island, so that its boundaries are the sea. Accordingly "on" is appropriate. "In" should certainly be used for an inland (or coastal) county.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose It depends on wether you consider the Isle of White as a land mass or as an administrative region. As a land mass "on" is appropriate, but for an administrative region it sounds plane wrong, you would not say Civil parishes on Cornwall. In this case it the admin region is the most important context so it should remain as "in".--
Salix (
talk):
23:41, 4 February 2011 (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:Former countries in China history
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedily Merged cat was only created when CfD notice was made, only populated by coding oversight in a template. RichFarmbrough, 01:35, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Comment – this seems to be populated in some very subtle way by {{Infobox Former Country}}, which has source code far beyond my own powers of comprehension. I expect some template guru could tweak the code so it yields 'Former countries in Chinese history'. (This category didn't exist until it was cfd'd.) I agree with the nom that
Category:Former countries in Chinese history is a preferable name.
Occuli (
talk)
01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename that infobox does or did a fair amount of category population, causing a few little problems here and there. RichFarmbrough, 01:09, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
... Actually this is really a template fix problem rather than a rename. RichFarmbrough, 01:10, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (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.
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 per variant 1 (to "School Name alumni"). I find the tertiary institutions precedent persuasive. In addition, this requires only three categories to be renamed to achieve consistency.
Ruslik_
Zero15:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Currently there are only a small number of Canadian schools categories but they're split down the middle on format and a standard system is desirable before we have too many more. I don't know if "alumni" is the preferred term or not but if not then the parent cat can be renamed as well.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support the 'or' option (use 'Alumni of' throughout). ('Athol Murray College of Notre Dame alumni' is unwieldy.) I am assuming 'alumni' is in widespread use in schools in Canada.
Occuli (
talk)
13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)reply
If "alumni" is widely used for former school pupils in Canada (it is not in the UK, where it only applies to tertiary institutions) then rename to the "Alumni of Foo" category names, which are less clumsy and look a lot better. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Based on the Candian tertiary institutions precedent I would say that renaming with School Name alumni is best here. I would also point out that these names are not unruly the way some claim, since alumni is always when on the end tacked on to the end of an institution name, so that alumni is always modifying everything before it, we never modify alumni in category names.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:31, 12 February 2011 (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 protected pages with expiry expired
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.
No objection from me. I imagine this category is no longer used due to some template rewrite at some point. Can probably be speedied. --
MZMcBride (
talk)
00:19, 29 January 2011 (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:Military of Hong Kong
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. Since Hong Kong does have some military of its own, the category is legit. But articles herein might be repositioned in another category.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't know if there is a standard of/in nomenclature for military categories, but this one reads wrong as "of" instead of "in". Hong Kong has no military OF it's own, its state (Britain or China) has forces IN the territory.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
21:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment HK does have paramilitary units in the police... And the category also contain WWII material, where HK had its own volunteer unit.
65.93.15.80 (
talk)
04:57, 30 January 2011 (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:Ambassadors of Pakistan to Bahrain
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. This is part of a major categorization scheme for which this article needs this category. Discussions about whether to impose limitations on it probably should be handled on a global basis..--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We do not normally create categories for ambassadors of one country to another unless there are many notable. in this case there is only one which hardly warrants a category.
LibStar (
talk)
12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete/Upmerge A lot of times I don't have a conceptual problem with a category tree but then I look at actual usage. The large majority of subcats under
Category:Ambassadors of Pakistan are 1 or 2 articles. I did add notices to both the creator's talk page as well as WikiProject Pakistan to get more opinions though, since I don't work in this topic area.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
04:25, 31 January 2011 (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:Łódź Ghetto
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:Rename. Suggest renaming to match the main article
Ghetto Litzmannstadt. A redirect should remain on the nominated category since it is a valid alternate name. (There was some talk on the discussion page over a year ago about moving this to
Lodz Ghetto, but it hasn't come to anything. Article has now been at this name since Feb 2008.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep The article appears to have been renamed and renamed again several times over the last five years, though there is very little discussion at
Talk:Ghetto Litzmannstadt. "Lodz Ghetto" has more than ten times as many Ghits and follows the more familiar Modern name or common English name + Ghetto format observed by most articles, as noted by BC, so it is the article name that deserves more thorough review.-
choster (
talk)
18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment (nom). Isn't it interesting how no one cares to attempt to move an article until there is a movement to standardize naming across categories and article? Starting a category nom seems to be quite an effective way to get users to make up their minds about where an article belongs.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, you're the nominator, and you've found the discrepancies, so why didn't you attempt to move the article? I find it interesting that you haven't attempted to move the articles.
65.93.15.80 (
talk)
05:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Because I do not want to be involved in that, mostly because I don't care. Users need to decide one way or the other—I don't care which they choose, but they need to choose.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't see how this is any different from putting up a requested move. I also don't see a good reason to choose a bad name over initiating a requested move in the first place.
65.93.12.249 (
talk)
18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)reply
If you can't tell the difference, I'm not sure I can help you. Quick recap: I don't care what the name of the article is. It was stable for well over a year, so I proposed that the category be renamed to match the article. That's where my involvement began and ended. If users decide that they want the articel moved, that's good for them, but I don't really care one way or the other, as long as in the end the category name matches the article name. I don't propose article renames when I don't care if the article is renamed or not.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Update: the discussion of at the article seems to be rejecting Ghetto Litzmannstadt, but now there's a discussion of whether to go for Łódź or Lodz (if the latter is chosen, then the categories will presumably lose the diacritics too).--
Kotniski (
talk)
00:05, 1 February 2011 (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:Provinces in coastal area of China
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: A category with no parent article, which does not appear to correspond to any recognized category tree within
Category:Regions of China. The category description reads like
WP:OR. If kept surely this would need to be renamed as there is no single coastal "area" along that long coastline, is there? (Oh, and I'm pretty sure this is banned user Mac).
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
05:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - There are a number of official schemes used by the Chinese government and others to divide Chinese provinces into regions, but putting all coastal provinces into one region is not one of them. I think that this category gives the wrong idea about the level of homogeneity among these disparate provinces.--
Danaman5 (
talk)
04:45, 29 January 2011 (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:Renault Z.E.
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: Another green car micro-category that I believe was created by a new sock of indef banned user Mac (the case is at SPI now). At any rate, delete per
WP:OC#SMALL as the parent article
Renault Z.E. shows there is little room for growth.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
04:35, 28 January 2011 (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:Literary journals
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:Merge. Duplicate categories. While one could make an argument that the distinction between literary journals and literary magazines is one of the level of sophistication or that journals have more of an academic bent to them, the distinction is so slight as to only create problems as far as categorization goes. The article is at
literary magazine and
literary journal redirects there.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. Those journals that also publish studies on literature (as opposed to publishing literature itself) could be categorized in a new category "literature-studies journals". All periodicals publishing exclusively fiction and/or poetry should be categorized as (literary) magazines, as they are not peer-reviewed academic journals (even if they have their roots in some university department). --
Crusio (
talk)
09:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. There are definitely some of these that feel quite a bit more like journals than magazines. I think I favor a more careful split rather than a merge.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:03, 11 February 2011 (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:Anoxic basins
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:Rename. A difficult one. This is not about basins per say, but rather bodies of water that contain
anoxic waters. Having said that, I'm open to seeing if there is a better name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that this can exist in pockets within the larger bodies, so while your suggestion is an improvement, it may not fix all of the problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Many lakes are anoxic, if you take it that way, since many lakes do not turn over, and have deep layers low in oxygen, are we going to fill this category with thousands of lakes?
65.93.15.80 (
talk)
05:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not opposed but it does not match the lead article. Would it also make sense to rename the main article? I think your proposal makes sense to a lay person.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:02, 1 February 2011 (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:Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. The "administrative rather than geographical" argument is stronger than the "it's surrounded by water" argument.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. "In" makes more sense when the place is a country unto itself, as with the Isle of Man. For islands that are parts of other countries, as with the Isle of Wight, "on" is probably better.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) [but only if we are referring to a geographical feature as opposed to an administrative unit, as explained by Mattingbgn below
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The Isle of Wight is also a county and "in X" reads better than "on X" when referring to a county IMO. The parishes in question are in effect administrative sub-divisions of the county so it is pretty clear that in this case the category relates to "Isle of Wight" as a county rather than as a geographic feature. --
Mattinbgn (
talk)
03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support -- The Isle of Wight is an island, so that its boundaries are the sea. Accordingly "on" is appropriate. "In" should certainly be used for an inland (or coastal) county.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose It depends on wether you consider the Isle of White as a land mass or as an administrative region. As a land mass "on" is appropriate, but for an administrative region it sounds plane wrong, you would not say Civil parishes on Cornwall. In this case it the admin region is the most important context so it should remain as "in".--
Salix (
talk):
23:41, 4 February 2011 (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:Former countries in China history
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedily Merged cat was only created when CfD notice was made, only populated by coding oversight in a template. RichFarmbrough, 01:35, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Comment – this seems to be populated in some very subtle way by {{Infobox Former Country}}, which has source code far beyond my own powers of comprehension. I expect some template guru could tweak the code so it yields 'Former countries in Chinese history'. (This category didn't exist until it was cfd'd.) I agree with the nom that
Category:Former countries in Chinese history is a preferable name.
Occuli (
talk)
01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename that infobox does or did a fair amount of category population, causing a few little problems here and there. RichFarmbrough, 01:09, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
... Actually this is really a template fix problem rather than a rename. RichFarmbrough, 01:10, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (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.