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. I created the category but made a spelling mistake. I've already created the category again with correct spelling. Sorry for the trouble.
Pancakeysshi (
talk)
22:21, 6 October 2012 (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 without infoboxes
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: I would like for this to be a discussion about the best naming convention for the many subcategories of this category. Currently, three naming conventions are in use: Foo articles without infoboxes (~35%), Foo articles needing infoboxes (~50%) and Foo articles needing an infobox (~15%).
I prefer the third option, for two reasons. First, the absence of an infobox is not necessarily a maintenance issue. Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles, "[t]he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article" and hinges on "consensus among the editors at each individual article". In fact, at least one WikiProject (
WikiProject Composers) discourages the use of infoboxes in biographical articles. The change from "without" to "needing" emphasizes that this is a maintenance category, and not merely a tracking category. Second, "needing an infobox" is, to my ear, more precise than "needing infoboxes". As a rule, each of the articles in question needs one infobox, not multiple infoboxes.
My core goal is, of course, to promote consistency and reduce duplication within the category tree. To that end, and assuming that this discussion produces a consensus for one of the three options, I intend to nominate the subcategories in a series of follow-up nominations or one mass nomination (depending on how much cleanup is needed along the way). Please note, also, that all (or almost all) of these categories are template-populated, so there will be no widespread disruption to article talk pages or user watchlists. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I guess to answer your question, there may be another to answer first. Are the infoboxes required or optional? Just because a project creates and encourages the use of an infobox does it make this mandatory?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that, no, they are not mandatory, and the categorization only serves to draw attention to the fact that at least one editor thought that an infobox would be appropriate. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this and all categories calling attention to the fact that an article is infobox-free. As an alternative, one could complement these categories with other categories and templates for articles with infoboxes encouraging their removal, or at least implying in some obvious way that the presence of the box is a problem. --
Hegvald (
talk)
21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The two situations are not directly comparable, in my opinion. Removing an infobox requires no more work than requesting its removal; however, adding an infobox requires considerably more work than requesting its addition. Of course, I sense that your alternative suggestion was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :) -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
How about "Category:Foo articles requesting an infobox" - I realize this would be more work (as none use this convention currently) however it seems potentially the clearest. —
Quiddity (
talk)
21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep as is, and rename all sub-categories to Foo articles without infoboxes. "Without" a neutral way of noting the lack of an infobox, and avoids taking sides in the arguments about whether or not to have them. Depending on POV, "without" can be read as "needing an infobox" or as "spared the intrusion of an infobox". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
That's the thing, though: "without" is less clear and, therefore, fails to indicate whether this is merely a needless tracking category or a useful maintenance category. In light of the prevalence of infoboxes, I find it difficult to believe that a simple, non-binding request for an infobox could be overly controversial. -- Black Falcon(
talk)01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I'd agree, normally. However, most of the subcategories are part of the category structure of one or more WikiProjects, whose "content" categories (i.e., those that directly contain talk pages) tend to use Foo articles ... rather than Wikipedia foo articles or even WikiProject foo articles. See, for instance, the titles of the subcategories of
Category:WikiProject Louisville articles. -- Black Falcon(
talk)17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)reply
That hierarchy is highly misleading, since "X articles" has nothing to do with X, since the scope of the topic X is not the same as the scope of the WikiProject X (some wikiprojects specifically exclude subjects that are part of topic X, others include subjects that are not part of topic X, etc). Further they're all administrative and not content categories, so should all have "WikiProject" prepended to them. --
70.50.149.56 (
talk)
05:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I wish that there was a way to upvote this comment. :) Your analysis is, of course, correct, and I also agree with your conclusion; however, changing that probably will require a full-blown RfC. -- Black Falcon(
talk)18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Having said that I'm not totally enamoured of the idea of using a Wikipedia prefix for these types of categories, and would prefer Quiddity's wording except that it implies that the article is doing the requesting. RichFarmbrough,
14:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC).reply
Keep and rename subs to match. I am convinced by
User:BrownHairedGirl's arguments above. Realistically this can only be a catch-all, because any drive-by editor who wants an infobox on an article without one could indicate a "need", similarly any drive-by editor happy with the current non-infobox state of the article noticing a "infobox needed" tag can just remove it as unneeded.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:54, 9 October 2012 (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:Lists of Northern Irish MPs
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 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:Candy companies
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.
Support, as an american, i never noticed the usage issue brought up here. Since
candy is not a straightforward synonym, but seems to historically refer mostly to sugar candy, and confectionery seems to include all forms of what we Americans call candy, it seems like we can live with this more global term, and maybe learn something new.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:22, 9 October 2012 (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:Asia and the Pacific 1941–42
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: This category aims to be a mish-mash of all content related to the years 1941 and 1942 in Asia and the Pacific Ocean; or, to quote the category description, "[t]his category is for non-war pages, for WWII pages, & for concurrent wars' pages for 2 years in the areas within the Pacific Ocean borders, its marginal seas , and within the regions of Asia, e.g., Category:Southeast Asia (1942)." Fully populated, it would be unmanageable. Even in its current state, populated mostly by articles about WWII battles, it is still arbitrary in its choice to split out two particular years of the
Pacific War.
Merge speedily before someone realizes they can sneak in articles about events in Iraq, Palestine and Siberia during those years and turn this into a total nightmare.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:51, 18 October 2012 (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.
Professorships by university
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.
As far as the individual institutional categories are concerned, more precise names are a good idea and seem uncontroversial, but I oppose renaming the main category: Not all professorships are located at universities. What about the ones at
Gresham College or the
Collège de France? I don't know about other countries but here in Sweden some head-of-department positions at museums and other research-oriented public institutions carry the title of "professor". I suspect that exceptions are common enough that the current title for this category is more universally valid. --
Hegvald (
talk)
21:31, 6 October 2012 (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.
Dublin Professorships
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.
PreferCategory:Professorships at Trinity College, Dublin. AS BHG has said the University of Dublin is in practice synonymous with Trinity college. However technically correct Univ of Dublin may be, for practical purposes it is misleading, since there are two other universities in Dublin. I am making this suggestion having checked that they are in fact all Trinity College professorships (I think); and I suspect there are more that ought to be added. Or is there soemthing else we should be merging it with?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:55, 7 October 2012 (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.
Energy resource facilities in the United States
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. There is a consensus that some restructuring is needed here, but that an automated merge is not the right option. Editors may want to open a centralised discussion on a new structure for energy categories in the United States, and should not feel obliged to delay returning to CFD if any alternative proposals need CFD attention. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All the items in this category are already in the “energy infrastructure” category or one of its subcategories, mostly as subcategories. Some oil platform articles are directly in this category, but they are also in
Category:Oil platforms off the United States. The main function of this category seems to be as a parent category for the 51 “energy resource facilities by state” subcategories, and these could eventually be renamed to “energy infrastructure by state”, as that is what they contain. This would avoid having two separate and parallel category trees.
Hugo999 (
talk)
11:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Most of the subcategories in
Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States by state seem to relate to either infrastructure eg power stations, with some general articles which would have to go into a subcategory on energy in that state. The contents of
Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States are intertwined with infrastructure categories at all levels eg power stations in electric power infrastructure, oil fields in oil infrastructure, and natural gas pipelines in transportation infrastructure (although in Europe they are in energy infrastructure). And why is an “energy resource facilities” category not neded outside the US?
Hugo999 (
talk)
22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment they are intertwined, but not in a parent-child relationship. Look downward from
Category:Energy resource facilities in the United States; then look downward from
Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States. There are not common subcats until several levels down and they are certainly not all common. Some commonality is not uncommon, but it is not enough to merge the structures. There is not a fit; it is a misfit. I mostly work on US items and I created both these categories. I expect that other editors will create such categoriees for other countries when they see the need to do so. Most countries do not have anywhere near the number of articles that the US has.
Hmains (
talk)
05:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. After looking at the subcategories, I don't see a general need for both categories at this time. While there may be some energy articles on a state by state basis, I'm far from convinced that at this time, we need
Category:Energy in the United States by state. For those states, if any, that may justify the creation of
Category:Energy in the United States by state these should be allowed to be recreated. But at this point, I'm not convinced of the need for any of these. While the merge may place some articles in an inappropriate category, that is not as bad as leaving both categories given the lack of articles at this time.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This has two facets: 1.) The overlap here is such that it looks like the two trees need re-working to enhance navigation, and honestly, clarity; but 2.) this needs editorial work, and shouldn't be an automated "merge". For the manual merge, I would suggest merging towards the "by state" format, since that is (potentially) part of a much larger framework, per current common practice. - jc3705:41, 30 October 2012 (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:Lists of people by university
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.
Oppose Forcing the marriage between universities and colleges (see:
College) was a bad idea to start with. These two should be distinct categories because, for example, universities always have academic faculties, and colleges do not , at least not consistently. This forced marriage at Wikipedia has produced many inconsistent sub-categories that will take a lot of work to unravel. Then there is also
Category:Academic institutions...
Ottawahitech (
talk)
14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment in the case of the United States the rename is surely needed. If you look at the contents of the category you will find lists of people from
Albion College and
Columbia College Chicago, and probably a lot more, those were just the two that caught my eye quickly. In the United States there is no real difference between colleges and universities. So much so that
Rocky Mountain College and
Rhodes College both if anything are more academically advanced now than when they called themselves or a partial parent institution university.
Boston College and
Boston University both grant doctoral degrees, and
Darmouth College has subdivisions that use the name college. In American speak people talk of "going to college", and this can include attending anywhere from Macomb Community College to Harvard University. While most people assume places that have university in their name grant graduate degrees and places that are just college only grant four year degrees, in Virginia I can find
College of William and Mary which has lots of graduate programs and
Southern Virginia University which only grants bachelors degrees. Some places in the US that have "univeristy" in their name grant lots of associates degrees, and at least in Michigan community colleges are allowed to grant bachelors degrees in nursing, so the whole matter is a mess. There is no realisitc way to differentiate the two which is why there are
Category:Alumni by university or college in Massachusetts and its 50 or so sister cats. We also assume that universities or colleges covers all tertiary level institutions, including places like
Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the
New England Conservatory or
Juilliard School, that do not use either of those words in their name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom and above comment. There is no reason to seperate college and university lists. These should probably be limited to tertiary institutions, but lots of those no one would call a university.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I created the category but made a spelling mistake. I've already created the category again with correct spelling. Sorry for the trouble.
Pancakeysshi (
talk)
22:21, 6 October 2012 (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 without infoboxes
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: I would like for this to be a discussion about the best naming convention for the many subcategories of this category. Currently, three naming conventions are in use: Foo articles without infoboxes (~35%), Foo articles needing infoboxes (~50%) and Foo articles needing an infobox (~15%).
I prefer the third option, for two reasons. First, the absence of an infobox is not necessarily a maintenance issue. Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles, "[t]he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article" and hinges on "consensus among the editors at each individual article". In fact, at least one WikiProject (
WikiProject Composers) discourages the use of infoboxes in biographical articles. The change from "without" to "needing" emphasizes that this is a maintenance category, and not merely a tracking category. Second, "needing an infobox" is, to my ear, more precise than "needing infoboxes". As a rule, each of the articles in question needs one infobox, not multiple infoboxes.
My core goal is, of course, to promote consistency and reduce duplication within the category tree. To that end, and assuming that this discussion produces a consensus for one of the three options, I intend to nominate the subcategories in a series of follow-up nominations or one mass nomination (depending on how much cleanup is needed along the way). Please note, also, that all (or almost all) of these categories are template-populated, so there will be no widespread disruption to article talk pages or user watchlists. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I guess to answer your question, there may be another to answer first. Are the infoboxes required or optional? Just because a project creates and encourages the use of an infobox does it make this mandatory?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that, no, they are not mandatory, and the categorization only serves to draw attention to the fact that at least one editor thought that an infobox would be appropriate. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this and all categories calling attention to the fact that an article is infobox-free. As an alternative, one could complement these categories with other categories and templates for articles with infoboxes encouraging their removal, or at least implying in some obvious way that the presence of the box is a problem. --
Hegvald (
talk)
21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The two situations are not directly comparable, in my opinion. Removing an infobox requires no more work than requesting its removal; however, adding an infobox requires considerably more work than requesting its addition. Of course, I sense that your alternative suggestion was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :) -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
How about "Category:Foo articles requesting an infobox" - I realize this would be more work (as none use this convention currently) however it seems potentially the clearest. —
Quiddity (
talk)
21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep as is, and rename all sub-categories to Foo articles without infoboxes. "Without" a neutral way of noting the lack of an infobox, and avoids taking sides in the arguments about whether or not to have them. Depending on POV, "without" can be read as "needing an infobox" or as "spared the intrusion of an infobox". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
That's the thing, though: "without" is less clear and, therefore, fails to indicate whether this is merely a needless tracking category or a useful maintenance category. In light of the prevalence of infoboxes, I find it difficult to believe that a simple, non-binding request for an infobox could be overly controversial. -- Black Falcon(
talk)01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I'd agree, normally. However, most of the subcategories are part of the category structure of one or more WikiProjects, whose "content" categories (i.e., those that directly contain talk pages) tend to use Foo articles ... rather than Wikipedia foo articles or even WikiProject foo articles. See, for instance, the titles of the subcategories of
Category:WikiProject Louisville articles. -- Black Falcon(
talk)17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)reply
That hierarchy is highly misleading, since "X articles" has nothing to do with X, since the scope of the topic X is not the same as the scope of the WikiProject X (some wikiprojects specifically exclude subjects that are part of topic X, others include subjects that are not part of topic X, etc). Further they're all administrative and not content categories, so should all have "WikiProject" prepended to them. --
70.50.149.56 (
talk)
05:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I wish that there was a way to upvote this comment. :) Your analysis is, of course, correct, and I also agree with your conclusion; however, changing that probably will require a full-blown RfC. -- Black Falcon(
talk)18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Having said that I'm not totally enamoured of the idea of using a Wikipedia prefix for these types of categories, and would prefer Quiddity's wording except that it implies that the article is doing the requesting. RichFarmbrough,
14:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC).reply
Keep and rename subs to match. I am convinced by
User:BrownHairedGirl's arguments above. Realistically this can only be a catch-all, because any drive-by editor who wants an infobox on an article without one could indicate a "need", similarly any drive-by editor happy with the current non-infobox state of the article noticing a "infobox needed" tag can just remove it as unneeded.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:54, 9 October 2012 (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:Lists of Northern Irish MPs
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 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:Candy companies
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.
Support, as an american, i never noticed the usage issue brought up here. Since
candy is not a straightforward synonym, but seems to historically refer mostly to sugar candy, and confectionery seems to include all forms of what we Americans call candy, it seems like we can live with this more global term, and maybe learn something new.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:22, 9 October 2012 (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:Asia and the Pacific 1941–42
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: This category aims to be a mish-mash of all content related to the years 1941 and 1942 in Asia and the Pacific Ocean; or, to quote the category description, "[t]his category is for non-war pages, for WWII pages, & for concurrent wars' pages for 2 years in the areas within the Pacific Ocean borders, its marginal seas , and within the regions of Asia, e.g., Category:Southeast Asia (1942)." Fully populated, it would be unmanageable. Even in its current state, populated mostly by articles about WWII battles, it is still arbitrary in its choice to split out two particular years of the
Pacific War.
Merge speedily before someone realizes they can sneak in articles about events in Iraq, Palestine and Siberia during those years and turn this into a total nightmare.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:51, 18 October 2012 (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.
Professorships by university
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.
As far as the individual institutional categories are concerned, more precise names are a good idea and seem uncontroversial, but I oppose renaming the main category: Not all professorships are located at universities. What about the ones at
Gresham College or the
Collège de France? I don't know about other countries but here in Sweden some head-of-department positions at museums and other research-oriented public institutions carry the title of "professor". I suspect that exceptions are common enough that the current title for this category is more universally valid. --
Hegvald (
talk)
21:31, 6 October 2012 (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.
Dublin Professorships
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.
PreferCategory:Professorships at Trinity College, Dublin. AS BHG has said the University of Dublin is in practice synonymous with Trinity college. However technically correct Univ of Dublin may be, for practical purposes it is misleading, since there are two other universities in Dublin. I am making this suggestion having checked that they are in fact all Trinity College professorships (I think); and I suspect there are more that ought to be added. Or is there soemthing else we should be merging it with?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:55, 7 October 2012 (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.
Energy resource facilities in the United States
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. There is a consensus that some restructuring is needed here, but that an automated merge is not the right option. Editors may want to open a centralised discussion on a new structure for energy categories in the United States, and should not feel obliged to delay returning to CFD if any alternative proposals need CFD attention. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All the items in this category are already in the “energy infrastructure” category or one of its subcategories, mostly as subcategories. Some oil platform articles are directly in this category, but they are also in
Category:Oil platforms off the United States. The main function of this category seems to be as a parent category for the 51 “energy resource facilities by state” subcategories, and these could eventually be renamed to “energy infrastructure by state”, as that is what they contain. This would avoid having two separate and parallel category trees.
Hugo999 (
talk)
11:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Most of the subcategories in
Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States by state seem to relate to either infrastructure eg power stations, with some general articles which would have to go into a subcategory on energy in that state. The contents of
Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States are intertwined with infrastructure categories at all levels eg power stations in electric power infrastructure, oil fields in oil infrastructure, and natural gas pipelines in transportation infrastructure (although in Europe they are in energy infrastructure). And why is an “energy resource facilities” category not neded outside the US?
Hugo999 (
talk)
22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment they are intertwined, but not in a parent-child relationship. Look downward from
Category:Energy resource facilities in the United States; then look downward from
Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States. There are not common subcats until several levels down and they are certainly not all common. Some commonality is not uncommon, but it is not enough to merge the structures. There is not a fit; it is a misfit. I mostly work on US items and I created both these categories. I expect that other editors will create such categoriees for other countries when they see the need to do so. Most countries do not have anywhere near the number of articles that the US has.
Hmains (
talk)
05:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. After looking at the subcategories, I don't see a general need for both categories at this time. While there may be some energy articles on a state by state basis, I'm far from convinced that at this time, we need
Category:Energy in the United States by state. For those states, if any, that may justify the creation of
Category:Energy in the United States by state these should be allowed to be recreated. But at this point, I'm not convinced of the need for any of these. While the merge may place some articles in an inappropriate category, that is not as bad as leaving both categories given the lack of articles at this time.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This has two facets: 1.) The overlap here is such that it looks like the two trees need re-working to enhance navigation, and honestly, clarity; but 2.) this needs editorial work, and shouldn't be an automated "merge". For the manual merge, I would suggest merging towards the "by state" format, since that is (potentially) part of a much larger framework, per current common practice. - jc3705:41, 30 October 2012 (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:Lists of people by university
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.
Oppose Forcing the marriage between universities and colleges (see:
College) was a bad idea to start with. These two should be distinct categories because, for example, universities always have academic faculties, and colleges do not , at least not consistently. This forced marriage at Wikipedia has produced many inconsistent sub-categories that will take a lot of work to unravel. Then there is also
Category:Academic institutions...
Ottawahitech (
talk)
14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment in the case of the United States the rename is surely needed. If you look at the contents of the category you will find lists of people from
Albion College and
Columbia College Chicago, and probably a lot more, those were just the two that caught my eye quickly. In the United States there is no real difference between colleges and universities. So much so that
Rocky Mountain College and
Rhodes College both if anything are more academically advanced now than when they called themselves or a partial parent institution university.
Boston College and
Boston University both grant doctoral degrees, and
Darmouth College has subdivisions that use the name college. In American speak people talk of "going to college", and this can include attending anywhere from Macomb Community College to Harvard University. While most people assume places that have university in their name grant graduate degrees and places that are just college only grant four year degrees, in Virginia I can find
College of William and Mary which has lots of graduate programs and
Southern Virginia University which only grants bachelors degrees. Some places in the US that have "univeristy" in their name grant lots of associates degrees, and at least in Michigan community colleges are allowed to grant bachelors degrees in nursing, so the whole matter is a mess. There is no realisitc way to differentiate the two which is why there are
Category:Alumni by university or college in Massachusetts and its 50 or so sister cats. We also assume that universities or colleges covers all tertiary level institutions, including places like
Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the
New England Conservatory or
Juilliard School, that do not use either of those words in their name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom and above comment. There is no reason to seperate college and university lists. These should probably be limited to tertiary institutions, but lots of those no one would call a university.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:07, 18 October 2012 (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.