| < January 29 | January 31 > |
|---|
January 30
Category:People honoured with a mineral name
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: listify and delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Category:People honoured with a mineral name
- Nominator's rationale This is essentially an awards cat, and we heavily discorage awards cats. I really see no reason to have this one at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Listify and we have a list List of minerals named after people to add any missing entries to. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Many notable people, like
Lavoisier,
Rittmann,
Argand,
Bragg,
Agricola,
Berzelius,
Pauling and
Mendeleev got their scientific work honoured with a mineral species or mineral group name. And we have:
Category:Royal Medal winners,
Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal and
Category:Nobel laureates in Physics. Don't bother, it's a hidden cat. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
07:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that the Wikipedia policy is against it, but there are some points. These people are related, at least on Wikipedia: a professor of mineralogy discovers a new mineral and names it after one of his masters. Some mineral stubs exist on Wikipedia more because the mineral name honours a notable person and less because the mineral itself is very important. The CNMNC/ IMA master list (2012 version) has 4,814 valid minerals, WP Rocks and minerals lists 1,228 articles (maybe c. 400 mineral articles named after people, but only a fraction are notable people with a biography on Wikipedia). There are both: Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal and Copley Medal (list of recipients), they complement each other. An encyclopedia is a library, and a library uses lists (in the broad sense) to overview itself. You need tools, everything isn't just one format, e.g.: categories, hidden cats and maintenance cats (I defend pluralism: truck, car, streetcar, bus, ship and so on). You need tools to make your voluntary work easier. I feel that CfD, AfD and copyvio are on overload modus. I think that Wikipedia is getting vandalism after the Wikipedia hype (c. 2007) in part because it is successful and defends a neutral point-of-view. The truth on Wikipedia destroys propaganda, and so the powerful people who pay for the propaganda fight Wikipedia. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. The user who created Category:Minerals named after people decided to create this category instead after that category was nominated for deletion: see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete once checked that all members are already on the list. None of these people are defined by having a mineral named after them anymore than John Carne Bidwill is defined by Araucaria bidwillii. The fact that it's a hidden category is not germane to this discussion. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 09:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per
WP:OC#AWARDS, but listify. Having a mineral name after them is not a
defining characteristic of the people in this category, so it should not exist. The fact that it has been hidden is irrelevant; this is not a maintenance category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- As it is not "concerned with the maintenance or administration of the Wikipedia project itself, rather than being part of the content of the encyclopedia", I have edited the category page to prevent it being a hidden category. Bencherlite Talk 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Listify (check) and delete as this is not a defining characteristic of the people in the category. Bencherlite Talk 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Listify (check) and delete - an honours category not defining of its members. Exceptions are individually argued (not always successfully) for certain rare awards, usually those internationally recognised as a top achievement in their field (eg Nobel or Oscars) or perhaps where reliable sources find it defining (ie, the honour is the main description a person is introduced with, inclusion in the list is what they are famous for). No such claim has been made in this case. --
Qetuth (
talk)
01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, Nobel Prizes exists since 1901, naming minerals after people is older. A Nobel Prize in Earth Sciences doesn't exist. The Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, but a scientist can be honoured posthumously with a mineral name. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 07:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Leo Tolstoy didn't get a Nobel Prize in Literature, they preferred Sully Prudhomme instead. Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev didn't get a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, his nomination was fighted by Svante Arrhenius; they preferred Henri Moissan (mineral moissanite, 1905). But mendeleevite-(Ce) (IMA 2009-92) was named after him, posthumously. Vasili Samarsky-Bykhovets wouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia, if he didn't send a mineral sample to professor Gustav Rose. In the end samarskite-(Y) (published 1839), samarskite-(Yb) (IMA 2004-001), calciosamarskite (published 1928) and samarium (discovered 1879) got named after him. Some on Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates shouldn't be there, XX century is a shame. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 08:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- we ought either to keep this or "minerals named after people" (but not both). One reason for only allowing award categories for the most important award is that the job is done much better by a list, which can place the winners in order and add something about why they won. That one is totally different; and since the naming is entirely at random dates, I see not objection to it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, I think that in this case a list could be very powerful. If laid out as a table, it could be sortable by person-name, mineral-name, date of naming, nationality of person, and so on. That's much more than can be achieved with a category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG A sortable table of this kind with 300 names needs a lot of work time and you end up with more than one "article" of 100 kBytes. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to start out that way. Just make a bare list to begin with, and
there is no deadline for improving it. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG I mean: the category is ready with hotcat, a list needs edit time. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which also means a category is much harder to maintain. Anyway, the fact of the matter is, we avoid award categories. The person who gave the sample mentioned above would rate an article whether or not people had decided to name a mineral after him. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG I mean: the category is ready with hotcat, a list needs edit time. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to start out that way. Just make a bare list to begin with, and
there is no deadline for improving it. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG A sortable table of this kind with 300 names needs a lot of work time and you end up with more than one "article" of 100 kBytes. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, I think that in this case a list could be very powerful. If laid out as a table, it could be sortable by person-name, mineral-name, date of naming, nationality of person, and so on. That's much more than can be achieved with a category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete a backward eponym category; WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Toronto Lynx
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USISL A-League) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USL A-League) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USL First Division) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USL PDL) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OVERCAT. –
Michael (
talk)
20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael ( talk) 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support, assuming it is all the same franchise. Reso lute 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless those are all the same league with different names. Because putting all players that just played for that team in various leagues would make the cat structure inaccurate. As you would have to put Category:Toronto Lynx players as a sub cat in each of those leagues players categories which would then mean the player played in each of those leagues if he is in the Toronto Lynx players cat when that is likely not true for every player. - DJSasso ( talk) 14:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh comeon, it's all the same franchise dating back to 1997. And no it does not make the cat structure inaccurate. Playing in different leagues has nothing to do with this. The fact that these categories feature the same franchise, this is a case of WP:OVERCAT. Simple as that. – Michael ( talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- If this is all about the same team playing at differnet periods in differnet leagues, we do not need more than one category for them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge It is all one team. The current system has some players in multiple categories, which considering the number of categories most sportspeople end up in anyway is a very bad idea. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge - it's the same team, no need for a category for every league played in! Giant Snowman 10:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ancient Greek works by writer
- 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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 12. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek works by writer to Category:Works by Ancient Greek writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Austrian writers to Category:Works by Austrian writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Scottish writers to Category:Works by Scottish writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by English writers to Category:Works by English writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by British writers to Category:Works by British writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Dutch writers to Category:Works by Dutch writers
- Propose renaming Category:French literature by writer to Category:Works by French writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Hungarian writers to Category:Works by Hungarian writers
- Propose renaming Category:Japanese works by writer to Category:Works by Japanese writers
- Propose renaming Category:Russian literature by writer to Category:Works by Russian writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by South Korean writers to Category:Works by South Korean writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Swiss writers to Category:Works by Swiss writers
- For alternatives, also consider Category:Works by American writers, Category:Works by Canadian writers, Category:Works by German writers, Category:Works by Irish writers, Category:Works by Italian writers 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per other categories in Category:Works by writer nationality. As these are works by writers, they don't need to say "literary" or "literature." Alternately, we could go with the format of Category:Japanese works by writer for all of these; this would match, for example, Category:French novels by writer.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
copy of Speedy discussion
|
|---|
|
- Comment: Category:Buildings and structures by architect and its national sub-categories are not just say "Works by architect", so "Literature by" would follow that example. Other cases of "Works by" are where the person created works in multiple fields. See the sub-cats of Category:Works by artist. Just thinking aloud... – Fayenatic L ondon 21:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to works by x writers. The nationality of the writers is clear and is what gives the works whatever nationality they have, so the form works by x writers seems the best. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to "Fooian literature by writer"; keep Category:French literature by writer and Category:Russian literature by writer. Each one is in a parent "Fooian literature", so I believe that "literature" should be kept; this is not redundant to "writer", as writers also write works other than literature e.g. Category:Ballets by librettist and Category:Songs by lyricist – and those are within Category:Works by writer. Moreover, as mentioned at the end of the nomination, there are corresponding predecents in the national sub-categories within Category:Books by writer and Category:Novels by writer. As a second preference, I would go with the format Category:Japanese works by writer as suggested by the nominator. I have added the other 5 sibling categories to be considered in this discussion. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to "Works by N writers". I don't think Category:Japanese works by writer is a good choice, because it replicates the ambiguity in Category:Japanese novels and Category:Japanese books: are they novels/books printed in Japan or written by Japanese writers? On the other hand, Category:Works by Japanese writers is more clear and definitely not redundant. Andreasm just talk to me 05:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I oppose "Works by N writers" because what we want is something ending in "…by writer" not "…by writers". Each of these is a {{
container category}} to collate sub-cats for specific writers, as part of
Category:Works by writer.
Category:Works by Japanese writers should actually be understood as a head category of
Category:Japanese literature rather than a sub-category, because it would also include Japanese songs, operas etc. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
23:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well then why not
Category:Works by Japanese writer etc, if you want to insist on works by writer form. In this case we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature. The problem is that I do not think the works have nationality, only the writers have nationality, we have subcats that are specifically by writer, and so that is what should be linked to Japan, Greece or anywhere else.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CATNAME#Categories by nationality says (in connection with categorising) that society & culture have nationality, including literature, not "only the writers". This does make sense, because people take their culture with them when they emigrate.
- These are the "by writer" descendants of the grandparent category Category:Literature by nationality. I think the sub-cats should follow the form of their parents.
- If "we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature" rather than e.g. lyrics, we need to include "literature" in the category name.
- As for "Works by Japanese writer", a lot of readers will think it doesn't sound right and must be a mistake. In contrast, Category:French literature by writer (i) follows its parent and (ii) instantly makes sense.
- In the hope that backlinks to this CfD may prove helpful, the target names that I am proposing are:
Category:Ancient Greek literature by writer,
Category:Austrian literature by writer,
Category:Scottish literature by writer,
Category:English literature by writer,
Category:British literature by writer,
Category:Dutch literature by writer,
Category:Hungarian literature by writer,
Category:Japanese literature by writer,
Category:South Korean literature by writer,
Category:Swiss literature by writer,
Category:American literature by writer,
Category:Canadian literature by writer,
Category:German literature by writer,
Category:Irish literature by writer and
Category:Italian literature by writer. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
22:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Could you please explain your statement «As for "Works by Japanese writer", a lot of readers will think it doesn't sound right and must be a mistake»? I don't see how can you know that. In particular, there has been no problem with Category:Films by director nationality (subcat form: Category:Films by Japanese directors) nor Category:Albums by artist nationality (subcat form: Category:Albums by Japanese artists). As for your proposal ( Category:Ancient Greek literature by writer), I find it quite unnatural, besides I couldn't find one example of application like the previous ones I mentioned. Andreasm just talk to me 17:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well then why not
Category:Works by Japanese writer etc, if you want to insist on works by writer form. In this case we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature. The problem is that I do not think the works have nationality, only the writers have nationality, we have subcats that are specifically by writer, and so that is what should be linked to Japan, Greece or anywhere else.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British railway junctions
- 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 to
Category:Rail junctions in Great Britain.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
09:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:British railway junctions to Category:Rail junctions in the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better matches the other subcategory in Category:Rail junctions. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Rail junctions in Great Britain, to avoid changing the scope. The rail network in Great Britain is run by Network Rail, which has no responsibility for Northern Ireland. GB's rail network is physically and organisationally disconnected from the rail network in Northern Ireland, and it is also fundamentally incompatible. Northern Ireland Railways uses Irish gauge, whereas railways in GB use standard gauge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per BHG. Rail transport is organised geographically rather than politically in Britain and Ireland. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- No objection to the proposal by BHG. She knows the UK better then me. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Named roundabouts
- 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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 12. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose splitting Category:Named roundabouts to Category:Roundabouts and Category:Traffic circles
- Propose renaming Category:Named roundabouts in the United States to Category:Roundabouts in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Split. No reason to split out those with names since having a name is not a reason to not include them in the underpopulated main categories. With two parents, there is no reason not to correctly classify these.
If discussion tends to support, I'll also nominate the sub categories.Looks like there is only one subcategory that needs merging. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Merge per nom.No reason to split roundabouts with explicit names from other notable ones that lack a clear name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)- comment The upmerge almost makes sense except that
roundabouts and
traffic circles are the same thing. I don't know why we have this
WP:FORK but I shall be calling for the merge of the two article shortly.
Mangoe (
talk)
22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- While the basic concepts are the same, they do appear to be different. The traffic circle is a controlled intersection where as the roundabout is not. While similar in overhead appearance, they are not the same. Have fun on the article merge discussion. If the articles are merged, then the categories can follow.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the discussion I see that there's no technical authority cited for the difference, and the one expert in the discussion back last March basically said that there's no distinction. Of course there will be a battle but...
Mangoe (
talk)
22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The bigger problem I'm seeing is that the people who are populating these categories can't tell the difference either, to the point where essentially every circular interchange appears in both categories, either directly or because it's in a list. Given the definitions I've seen bandied about I would be hard pressed to say whether any of the many circles in DC are roundabouts by US standards (I'm inclined to say few to none of them are, because they are mostly controlled by traffic lights). I think it makes more sense to make one unified category for all of them because I think it's going to be impossible to cite specifically what they are.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem may be that the two categories were is separated trees. I made some changes to bring these closer together and maybe help to reduce the confusion in the future. Of course there is the one intersection that was converted from a traffic circle to a roundabout. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The bigger problem I'm seeing is that the people who are populating these categories can't tell the difference either, to the point where essentially every circular interchange appears in both categories, either directly or because it's in a list. Given the definitions I've seen bandied about I would be hard pressed to say whether any of the many circles in DC are roundabouts by US standards (I'm inclined to say few to none of them are, because they are mostly controlled by traffic lights). I think it makes more sense to make one unified category for all of them because I think it's going to be impossible to cite specifically what they are.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the discussion I see that there's no technical authority cited for the difference, and the one expert in the discussion back last March basically said that there's no distinction. Of course there will be a battle but...
Mangoe (
talk)
22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- While the basic concepts are the same, they do appear to be different. The traffic circle is a controlled intersection where as the roundabout is not. While similar in overhead appearance, they are not the same. Have fun on the article merge discussion. If the articles are merged, then the categories can follow.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge everything to a new category
Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts. From what I have read it sounds like the definition of the terms varries by location, and I have to agree that few people realize there is a difference between them, let alone what the difference is.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually all of the traffic circles were removed so all that is contained here is roundabouts at this time. So this is now basically a rename and not a split.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Were it so simple. Looking in Category:Named roundabouts in the United States a cursory examination shows that perhaps none of the members is actually a roundabout in the modern US-traffic-engineering sense. Consider Dupont Circle, perhaps the most extreme deviant: it has two concentric circles and an underpass, all controlled by a complex system of traffic lights. It doesn't seem to fit the definition given in the roundabout article, and it does seem to fit with that article's claim about what makes a traffic circle. I am generally wary of removing members during a discussion, but I would suggest that we're not necessarily going to find sources that say "traffic circle, not a roundabout" or vice versa about every one of these, or perhaps even more than a couple of these. Mangoe ( talk) 13:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually all of the traffic circles were removed so all that is contained here is roundabouts at this time. So this is now basically a rename and not a split.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge all to Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts per JPL. It looks to me as though it's too difficult to split these two classes precisely. Mangoe ( talk) 13:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Video Games set in Crusaders
- 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 to
Category:Video games set in the Crusades per
Category:Video games set in the Middle Ages.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Video Games set in Crusaders to Category:Crusades video games
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was tagged for speedy renaming to the same title, but the nomination was mis-typed and then rejected, see below. Although I initially supported Category:Video games about the Crusades, I looked around the hierarchy e.g. Category:Video games with historical settings and was going to nominate this instead for renaming to Category:Video games set in the Crusades. However, the sister category is Category:Crusades films, and that follows a thoroughly-observed pattern within both Category:Films by war and Category:Video games by war. IMHO it would be better to change all of those to the pattern "Films set in the Foo War", but for now let's just harmonise this ungrammatical odd-one-out. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Copy of Speedy discussion
|
|---|
|
- Rename to Category:Video games about the Crusades. We need to make it clear what makes something fit in this. Otherwise people might think it would include a video game where you pretend to be Carry Nation. I mean she was a "crusader" per one definition. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fiction set in ancient Rome by genre
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category is mis-named, as the contents are by medium rather than genre. However, it is in any case an unnecessary layer, so should be upmerged rather than renamed. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Medieval video games
- 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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Medieval video games to Category:Video games set in the Middle Ages
- Propose renaming Category:Medieval fantasy video games to Category:Fantasy video games set in the Middle Ages
- Propose renaming Category:Roman Empire video games to Category:Video games set in the Roman Empire
- Nominator's rationale: Rename as ambiguous; these are delightful anachronisms begging for clarification. The video games in question were not written in the named historical eras. The proposed new names will correspond to some siblings within Category:Video games with historical settings, Category:Middle Ages in popular culture and Category:Roman Empire in art and culture. Although there is a page Medieval fantasy which is about modern works set in the Middle Ages, it is only a poorly-referenced stub at the moment, and there are no sibling categories by that name e.g. in Category:Fantasy films by genre or Category:Fantasy novels by subgenre, so it is not well established as a sub-genre. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
merge to Category:1980s in video gaming, er, rename as proposed Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)- I don't understand why 1980s would be a good target; the games aren't limited to that decade. The proposed renames make sense to me. —
Ost (
talk)
21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just a joke there.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't get it. But I'm glad it was one. — Ost ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just a joke there.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename the current name makes it sound like these were made in the medieval period, etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename I can almost see the Borgias playing these. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:National Hockey League controversies
- 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: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons why its parent article was deleted. Like the list, the definition of "controversy" is ill-defined and based almost entirely on someone's opinion of what constitutes such. Nearly all of the entries fall into one of two groups: labour disputes and fighting/brawls/violence. Those both have their own categories, and I am not seeing any great reason to join them in this fashion. Reso lute 15:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Looking through the list, how would one ever fill the category? Benkenobi18 ( talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete These are much better categorized in labor or fight categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rhinolophus
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Rhinolophus to Category:Rhinolophidae
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Rhinolophus is basically the only genus in the family Rhinolophidae (there's one poorly known and questionable fossil too). This just adds an unnecessary layer to the categorization scheme. Ucucha ( talk) 04:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Family > genra is the standard category tree format. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
10:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not so; look at the other families in Category:Bats. Many don't have genus categories, especially the ones that contain only a single genus (e.g., Category:Miniopteridae, Category:Nycteridae). We subdivide large taxa by genus when there is a need, and in this case there is no need. Ucucha ( talk) 14:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted from
CFD 2013 January 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge there is nothing being gained by this division. If we had a sister cat we were also dividing into this would make sense, but we don't. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:University of California, Los Angeles School of Law alumni
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To match the article, which is at UCLA School of Law per WP:COMMONNAME. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per
Category:University of California, Los Angeles,
Category:University of California, Los Angeles people,
Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni etc.
Oculi (
talk)
17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but is it better to match the category structure or the article name? Both are in the guidelines, but I think matching the article title is more important here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Rename The standard is to append the word "alumni" after the name of the school and this should be a speedy rename. The name of the associated category is irrelevant here and avoids the utter illogic of having the category name not match the title of the parent article, though when it comes to Los Angeles and categories it seems that all logic is out the window. Alansohn ( talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep we generally discorage the use of acrynyms in category names, and I see no reason to do so here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- We also follow
WP:COMMONNAME and per
the school's website, the name is "UCLA School of Law", which is why the title of the parent article is
UCLA School of Law, matching the real-world usage. "University of California, Los Angeles School of Law" is a manufactured title with no legitimacy or provenance. It does not correspond to any reality and we should discourage such inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still looking for a better image, but this indicates that it may not be a manufactured name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- We also follow
WP:COMMONNAME and per
the school's website, the name is "UCLA School of Law", which is why the title of the parent article is
UCLA School of Law, matching the real-world usage. "University of California, Los Angeles School of Law" is a manufactured title with no legitimacy or provenance. It does not correspond to any reality and we should discourage such inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. There are conflicting "conventions", but I think here matching to the article name about the specific school trumps consistency with the other categories/article names. We do not discourage acronyms in category names if the article name uses acronyms: eg, Category:NATO, Category:OPEC, and many others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, C2D, and WP:COMMONAME. "UCLA" is widely recognised and also used in other alumni subcats. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted from
CfD 2013 January 20 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The problem here is that we have multiple naming conventions in play. The top parent article is University of California, Los Angeles. So to me it makes the most sense to use that as the base for all names associated with the institution. I guess it is safe to say that this one can not be decided on it's own. The decision really needs to be made in consideration of the rest of this group of categories. While the main article is at UCLA School of Law, the infobox uses University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question? Are you sure of your logic that "University of California, Los Angeles" should be "the base for all names associated with the institution"? I'd be happy to nominate
Category:UCLA Bruins and all of the categories within that structure to conform to your standard as
Category:University of California, Los Angeles Bruins, with several dozen other subcategories to be renamed including
University of California, Los Angeles Bruins women's track and field athletes. And unlike
UCLA School of Law, which uses the abbreviation as an institution operating as a school separate and apart from UCLA, the sports teams at the college are indisputably within the parent article
University of California, Los Angeles and the parent
Category:University of California, Los Angeles. I'm also not sure why the name in the infobox should carry any weight over the name of the article or the only name used on the school's website, but the name in the infobox is now "UCLA School of Law", thanks to the power of Wikipedia to correct such errors.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think UCLA School of Law is definitely the official (not to mention common) name of the school: just as
UCLA Law Review is the official name of the school's academic journal.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who issues the diploma and what is on that diploma?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue—I'm not a graduate. I'm not sure that's a good measure, however. The name of the universities I attended are in Latin script on my diplomas. "VNIVERSITAS etc." Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Who issues the diploma and what is on that diploma?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think UCLA School of Law is definitely the official (not to mention common) name of the school: just as
UCLA Law Review is the official name of the school's academic journal.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question? Are you sure of your logic that "University of California, Los Angeles" should be "the base for all names associated with the institution"? I'd be happy to nominate
Category:UCLA Bruins and all of the categories within that structure to conform to your standard as
Category:University of California, Los Angeles Bruins, with several dozen other subcategories to be renamed including
University of California, Los Angeles Bruins women's track and field athletes. And unlike
UCLA School of Law, which uses the abbreviation as an institution operating as a school separate and apart from UCLA, the sports teams at the college are indisputably within the parent article
University of California, Los Angeles and the parent
Category:University of California, Los Angeles. I'm also not sure why the name in the infobox should carry any weight over the name of the article or the only name used on the school's website, but the name in the infobox is now "UCLA School of Law", thanks to the power of Wikipedia to correct such errors.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment however many sports teams do not use the full name of the college or university in the categories. In fact, most either use an like UCLA, or are in forms like Category:Harvard Crimson athletes, even though the institution is Harvard University. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Templates for peripheries (Kallikratis)
- 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. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Templates for peripheries (Kallikratis) to Category:Greece region templates
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article Modern regions of Greece and other cats at Greece subdivision templates Constantine ✍ 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted from
CfD 2013 January 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- WikiProject Greece has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The new name is by far a lot more clear. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:University and college book publishing 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:University presses and move other contents to Category:Academic publishing companies. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Most of the companies in this cat also publish
magazines and/or
academic journals. Few companies concentrate on one of these publication types alone, so creating "University and college journal publishing companies" would just create a cat with almost the same content as this one.
Randykitty (
talk)
10:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have modified the proposal per the excellent suggestion of Peterkingiron below. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. I just checked the 5 articles listed in the category under letters J, K & L (i.e. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Karlstad University Press, Khazar University Press, Lehigh University Press and Liverpool University Press) ... and I found that of these 5, only Lehigh University Press restricted itself to publishing books. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:University presses and purge of those that are purely commercial publishers (e.g. of books fro university students. We have
Category:Books published by university presses, so why not one for the prsses themselves? The category may ast poresent include a few that belong with colleges that are strictly not universities, but I doubt that matters. I would add that the Oxford and Cambridge Univ Presses are not companies but emanations of the university; and I suspect that this applies elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It's terse and uses a well-known term, for which we already have a rather good list:
List of university presses.
I also think it's a good idea to exclude the purely commercial companies, which can be moved to the parent Category:Academic publishing companies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It's terse and uses a well-known term, for which we already have a rather good list:
List of university presses.
- Comment In general I like the idea to rename to the university press category, but should it not be Category:University and college presses since some of the categories are for college presses and not university presses. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:University presses, after looking at the contents I do not see anything that it is clear should be there and would not fit under the term "university press". It does not appear that any press uses "college" in its name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Henlopen Conference
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Delaware high school sports conferences. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to be expanded further, dubious notability of subject. Secret account 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Delaware high school sports conferences. The nominator is correct that this single-article category fails
WP:SMALLCAT, but should have checked whether upmerger was more appropriate than deletion. I have just
recategorised the head article from
Category:High school sports conferences and leagues in the United States to the more specific
Category:Delaware high school sports conferences, so upmerger will now have the same effect as deletion ... but the nominator has a responsibility to check these things before making the nomination.
Also, the notability of the Henlopen Conference is not relevant at CFD. Categories exist to faciliate navigation between existing articles, and if editors have concerns about the notability of a topic, the articles should be taken to WP:AFD. But so long as an article exists, a CFD discussion can only consider how to categorise it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) - upmerge per BHG
, at least for now. If one assumes that high school sports conferences are notable, then I know that there are more out there than just that one. However the only justification for the present category would be to include the schools, which seems less than defining. Mangoe ( talk) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see that the category has been further populated, so my support for the upmerge is unconditional.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It currently contains only one item, viz., the head article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see that the category has been further populated, so my support for the upmerge is unconditional.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete since the entire contents are already in the porposed target cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)----
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Monotheist Paganism
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category page presumably created by mistake by an editor who probably wanted to start a new article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no contents to category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1 if still empty on 3 February. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per BHG. Good to see you back! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 23:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete "creationism" :-) - Arjayay ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
| < January 29 | January 31 > |
|---|
January 30
Category:People honoured with a mineral name
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: listify and delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Category:People honoured with a mineral name
- Nominator's rationale This is essentially an awards cat, and we heavily discorage awards cats. I really see no reason to have this one at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Listify and we have a list List of minerals named after people to add any missing entries to. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Many notable people, like
Lavoisier,
Rittmann,
Argand,
Bragg,
Agricola,
Berzelius,
Pauling and
Mendeleev got their scientific work honoured with a mineral species or mineral group name. And we have:
Category:Royal Medal winners,
Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal and
Category:Nobel laureates in Physics. Don't bother, it's a hidden cat. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
07:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that the Wikipedia policy is against it, but there are some points. These people are related, at least on Wikipedia: a professor of mineralogy discovers a new mineral and names it after one of his masters. Some mineral stubs exist on Wikipedia more because the mineral name honours a notable person and less because the mineral itself is very important. The CNMNC/ IMA master list (2012 version) has 4,814 valid minerals, WP Rocks and minerals lists 1,228 articles (maybe c. 400 mineral articles named after people, but only a fraction are notable people with a biography on Wikipedia). There are both: Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal and Copley Medal (list of recipients), they complement each other. An encyclopedia is a library, and a library uses lists (in the broad sense) to overview itself. You need tools, everything isn't just one format, e.g.: categories, hidden cats and maintenance cats (I defend pluralism: truck, car, streetcar, bus, ship and so on). You need tools to make your voluntary work easier. I feel that CfD, AfD and copyvio are on overload modus. I think that Wikipedia is getting vandalism after the Wikipedia hype (c. 2007) in part because it is successful and defends a neutral point-of-view. The truth on Wikipedia destroys propaganda, and so the powerful people who pay for the propaganda fight Wikipedia. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. The user who created Category:Minerals named after people decided to create this category instead after that category was nominated for deletion: see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete once checked that all members are already on the list. None of these people are defined by having a mineral named after them anymore than John Carne Bidwill is defined by Araucaria bidwillii. The fact that it's a hidden category is not germane to this discussion. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 09:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per
WP:OC#AWARDS, but listify. Having a mineral name after them is not a
defining characteristic of the people in this category, so it should not exist. The fact that it has been hidden is irrelevant; this is not a maintenance category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- As it is not "concerned with the maintenance or administration of the Wikipedia project itself, rather than being part of the content of the encyclopedia", I have edited the category page to prevent it being a hidden category. Bencherlite Talk 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Listify (check) and delete as this is not a defining characteristic of the people in the category. Bencherlite Talk 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Listify (check) and delete - an honours category not defining of its members. Exceptions are individually argued (not always successfully) for certain rare awards, usually those internationally recognised as a top achievement in their field (eg Nobel or Oscars) or perhaps where reliable sources find it defining (ie, the honour is the main description a person is introduced with, inclusion in the list is what they are famous for). No such claim has been made in this case. --
Qetuth (
talk)
01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, Nobel Prizes exists since 1901, naming minerals after people is older. A Nobel Prize in Earth Sciences doesn't exist. The Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, but a scientist can be honoured posthumously with a mineral name. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 07:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Leo Tolstoy didn't get a Nobel Prize in Literature, they preferred Sully Prudhomme instead. Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev didn't get a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, his nomination was fighted by Svante Arrhenius; they preferred Henri Moissan (mineral moissanite, 1905). But mendeleevite-(Ce) (IMA 2009-92) was named after him, posthumously. Vasili Samarsky-Bykhovets wouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia, if he didn't send a mineral sample to professor Gustav Rose. In the end samarskite-(Y) (published 1839), samarskite-(Yb) (IMA 2004-001), calciosamarskite (published 1928) and samarium (discovered 1879) got named after him. Some on Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates shouldn't be there, XX century is a shame. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 08:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- we ought either to keep this or "minerals named after people" (but not both). One reason for only allowing award categories for the most important award is that the job is done much better by a list, which can place the winners in order and add something about why they won. That one is totally different; and since the naming is entirely at random dates, I see not objection to it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, I think that in this case a list could be very powerful. If laid out as a table, it could be sortable by person-name, mineral-name, date of naming, nationality of person, and so on. That's much more than can be achieved with a category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG A sortable table of this kind with 300 names needs a lot of work time and you end up with more than one "article" of 100 kBytes. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to start out that way. Just make a bare list to begin with, and
there is no deadline for improving it. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG I mean: the category is ready with hotcat, a list needs edit time. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which also means a category is much harder to maintain. Anyway, the fact of the matter is, we avoid award categories. The person who gave the sample mentioned above would rate an article whether or not people had decided to name a mineral after him. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG I mean: the category is ready with hotcat, a list needs edit time. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to start out that way. Just make a bare list to begin with, and
there is no deadline for improving it. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- BHG A sortable table of this kind with 300 names needs a lot of work time and you end up with more than one "article" of 100 kBytes. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Actually, I think that in this case a list could be very powerful. If laid out as a table, it could be sortable by person-name, mineral-name, date of naming, nationality of person, and so on. That's much more than can be achieved with a category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete a backward eponym category; WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Toronto Lynx
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USISL A-League) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USL A-League) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USL First Division) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Propose merging Category:Toronto Lynx (USL PDL) players to Category:Toronto Lynx players
- Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OVERCAT. –
Michael (
talk)
20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael ( talk) 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support, assuming it is all the same franchise. Reso lute 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless those are all the same league with different names. Because putting all players that just played for that team in various leagues would make the cat structure inaccurate. As you would have to put Category:Toronto Lynx players as a sub cat in each of those leagues players categories which would then mean the player played in each of those leagues if he is in the Toronto Lynx players cat when that is likely not true for every player. - DJSasso ( talk) 14:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh comeon, it's all the same franchise dating back to 1997. And no it does not make the cat structure inaccurate. Playing in different leagues has nothing to do with this. The fact that these categories feature the same franchise, this is a case of WP:OVERCAT. Simple as that. – Michael ( talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- If this is all about the same team playing at differnet periods in differnet leagues, we do not need more than one category for them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge It is all one team. The current system has some players in multiple categories, which considering the number of categories most sportspeople end up in anyway is a very bad idea. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge - it's the same team, no need for a category for every league played in! Giant Snowman 10:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ancient Greek works by writer
- 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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 12. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek works by writer to Category:Works by Ancient Greek writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Austrian writers to Category:Works by Austrian writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Scottish writers to Category:Works by Scottish writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by English writers to Category:Works by English writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by British writers to Category:Works by British writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Dutch writers to Category:Works by Dutch writers
- Propose renaming Category:French literature by writer to Category:Works by French writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Hungarian writers to Category:Works by Hungarian writers
- Propose renaming Category:Japanese works by writer to Category:Works by Japanese writers
- Propose renaming Category:Russian literature by writer to Category:Works by Russian writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by South Korean writers to Category:Works by South Korean writers
- Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Swiss writers to Category:Works by Swiss writers
- For alternatives, also consider Category:Works by American writers, Category:Works by Canadian writers, Category:Works by German writers, Category:Works by Irish writers, Category:Works by Italian writers 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per other categories in Category:Works by writer nationality. As these are works by writers, they don't need to say "literary" or "literature." Alternately, we could go with the format of Category:Japanese works by writer for all of these; this would match, for example, Category:French novels by writer.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
copy of Speedy discussion
|
|---|
|
- Comment: Category:Buildings and structures by architect and its national sub-categories are not just say "Works by architect", so "Literature by" would follow that example. Other cases of "Works by" are where the person created works in multiple fields. See the sub-cats of Category:Works by artist. Just thinking aloud... – Fayenatic L ondon 21:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to works by x writers. The nationality of the writers is clear and is what gives the works whatever nationality they have, so the form works by x writers seems the best. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to "Fooian literature by writer"; keep Category:French literature by writer and Category:Russian literature by writer. Each one is in a parent "Fooian literature", so I believe that "literature" should be kept; this is not redundant to "writer", as writers also write works other than literature e.g. Category:Ballets by librettist and Category:Songs by lyricist – and those are within Category:Works by writer. Moreover, as mentioned at the end of the nomination, there are corresponding predecents in the national sub-categories within Category:Books by writer and Category:Novels by writer. As a second preference, I would go with the format Category:Japanese works by writer as suggested by the nominator. I have added the other 5 sibling categories to be considered in this discussion. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to "Works by N writers". I don't think Category:Japanese works by writer is a good choice, because it replicates the ambiguity in Category:Japanese novels and Category:Japanese books: are they novels/books printed in Japan or written by Japanese writers? On the other hand, Category:Works by Japanese writers is more clear and definitely not redundant. Andreasm just talk to me 05:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I oppose "Works by N writers" because what we want is something ending in "…by writer" not "…by writers". Each of these is a {{
container category}} to collate sub-cats for specific writers, as part of
Category:Works by writer.
Category:Works by Japanese writers should actually be understood as a head category of
Category:Japanese literature rather than a sub-category, because it would also include Japanese songs, operas etc. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
23:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well then why not
Category:Works by Japanese writer etc, if you want to insist on works by writer form. In this case we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature. The problem is that I do not think the works have nationality, only the writers have nationality, we have subcats that are specifically by writer, and so that is what should be linked to Japan, Greece or anywhere else.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CATNAME#Categories by nationality says (in connection with categorising) that society & culture have nationality, including literature, not "only the writers". This does make sense, because people take their culture with them when they emigrate.
- These are the "by writer" descendants of the grandparent category Category:Literature by nationality. I think the sub-cats should follow the form of their parents.
- If "we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature" rather than e.g. lyrics, we need to include "literature" in the category name.
- As for "Works by Japanese writer", a lot of readers will think it doesn't sound right and must be a mistake. In contrast, Category:French literature by writer (i) follows its parent and (ii) instantly makes sense.
- In the hope that backlinks to this CfD may prove helpful, the target names that I am proposing are:
Category:Ancient Greek literature by writer,
Category:Austrian literature by writer,
Category:Scottish literature by writer,
Category:English literature by writer,
Category:British literature by writer,
Category:Dutch literature by writer,
Category:Hungarian literature by writer,
Category:Japanese literature by writer,
Category:South Korean literature by writer,
Category:Swiss literature by writer,
Category:American literature by writer,
Category:Canadian literature by writer,
Category:German literature by writer,
Category:Irish literature by writer and
Category:Italian literature by writer. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
22:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Could you please explain your statement «As for "Works by Japanese writer", a lot of readers will think it doesn't sound right and must be a mistake»? I don't see how can you know that. In particular, there has been no problem with Category:Films by director nationality (subcat form: Category:Films by Japanese directors) nor Category:Albums by artist nationality (subcat form: Category:Albums by Japanese artists). As for your proposal ( Category:Ancient Greek literature by writer), I find it quite unnatural, besides I couldn't find one example of application like the previous ones I mentioned. Andreasm just talk to me 17:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well then why not
Category:Works by Japanese writer etc, if you want to insist on works by writer form. In this case we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature. The problem is that I do not think the works have nationality, only the writers have nationality, we have subcats that are specifically by writer, and so that is what should be linked to Japan, Greece or anywhere else.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British railway junctions
- 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 to
Category:Rail junctions in Great Britain.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
09:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:British railway junctions to Category:Rail junctions in the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better matches the other subcategory in Category:Rail junctions. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Rail junctions in Great Britain, to avoid changing the scope. The rail network in Great Britain is run by Network Rail, which has no responsibility for Northern Ireland. GB's rail network is physically and organisationally disconnected from the rail network in Northern Ireland, and it is also fundamentally incompatible. Northern Ireland Railways uses Irish gauge, whereas railways in GB use standard gauge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per BHG. Rail transport is organised geographically rather than politically in Britain and Ireland. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- No objection to the proposal by BHG. She knows the UK better then me. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Named roundabouts
- 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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 12. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose splitting Category:Named roundabouts to Category:Roundabouts and Category:Traffic circles
- Propose renaming Category:Named roundabouts in the United States to Category:Roundabouts in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Split. No reason to split out those with names since having a name is not a reason to not include them in the underpopulated main categories. With two parents, there is no reason not to correctly classify these.
If discussion tends to support, I'll also nominate the sub categories.Looks like there is only one subcategory that needs merging. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Merge per nom.No reason to split roundabouts with explicit names from other notable ones that lack a clear name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)- comment The upmerge almost makes sense except that
roundabouts and
traffic circles are the same thing. I don't know why we have this
WP:FORK but I shall be calling for the merge of the two article shortly.
Mangoe (
talk)
22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- While the basic concepts are the same, they do appear to be different. The traffic circle is a controlled intersection where as the roundabout is not. While similar in overhead appearance, they are not the same. Have fun on the article merge discussion. If the articles are merged, then the categories can follow.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the discussion I see that there's no technical authority cited for the difference, and the one expert in the discussion back last March basically said that there's no distinction. Of course there will be a battle but...
Mangoe (
talk)
22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The bigger problem I'm seeing is that the people who are populating these categories can't tell the difference either, to the point where essentially every circular interchange appears in both categories, either directly or because it's in a list. Given the definitions I've seen bandied about I would be hard pressed to say whether any of the many circles in DC are roundabouts by US standards (I'm inclined to say few to none of them are, because they are mostly controlled by traffic lights). I think it makes more sense to make one unified category for all of them because I think it's going to be impossible to cite specifically what they are.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem may be that the two categories were is separated trees. I made some changes to bring these closer together and maybe help to reduce the confusion in the future. Of course there is the one intersection that was converted from a traffic circle to a roundabout. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The bigger problem I'm seeing is that the people who are populating these categories can't tell the difference either, to the point where essentially every circular interchange appears in both categories, either directly or because it's in a list. Given the definitions I've seen bandied about I would be hard pressed to say whether any of the many circles in DC are roundabouts by US standards (I'm inclined to say few to none of them are, because they are mostly controlled by traffic lights). I think it makes more sense to make one unified category for all of them because I think it's going to be impossible to cite specifically what they are.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the discussion I see that there's no technical authority cited for the difference, and the one expert in the discussion back last March basically said that there's no distinction. Of course there will be a battle but...
Mangoe (
talk)
22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- While the basic concepts are the same, they do appear to be different. The traffic circle is a controlled intersection where as the roundabout is not. While similar in overhead appearance, they are not the same. Have fun on the article merge discussion. If the articles are merged, then the categories can follow.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge everything to a new category
Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts. From what I have read it sounds like the definition of the terms varries by location, and I have to agree that few people realize there is a difference between them, let alone what the difference is.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually all of the traffic circles were removed so all that is contained here is roundabouts at this time. So this is now basically a rename and not a split.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Were it so simple. Looking in Category:Named roundabouts in the United States a cursory examination shows that perhaps none of the members is actually a roundabout in the modern US-traffic-engineering sense. Consider Dupont Circle, perhaps the most extreme deviant: it has two concentric circles and an underpass, all controlled by a complex system of traffic lights. It doesn't seem to fit the definition given in the roundabout article, and it does seem to fit with that article's claim about what makes a traffic circle. I am generally wary of removing members during a discussion, but I would suggest that we're not necessarily going to find sources that say "traffic circle, not a roundabout" or vice versa about every one of these, or perhaps even more than a couple of these. Mangoe ( talk) 13:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually all of the traffic circles were removed so all that is contained here is roundabouts at this time. So this is now basically a rename and not a split.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge all to Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts per JPL. It looks to me as though it's too difficult to split these two classes precisely. Mangoe ( talk) 13:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Video Games set in Crusaders
- 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 to
Category:Video games set in the Crusades per
Category:Video games set in the Middle Ages.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Video Games set in Crusaders to Category:Crusades video games
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was tagged for speedy renaming to the same title, but the nomination was mis-typed and then rejected, see below. Although I initially supported Category:Video games about the Crusades, I looked around the hierarchy e.g. Category:Video games with historical settings and was going to nominate this instead for renaming to Category:Video games set in the Crusades. However, the sister category is Category:Crusades films, and that follows a thoroughly-observed pattern within both Category:Films by war and Category:Video games by war. IMHO it would be better to change all of those to the pattern "Films set in the Foo War", but for now let's just harmonise this ungrammatical odd-one-out. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Copy of Speedy discussion
|
|---|
|
- Rename to Category:Video games about the Crusades. We need to make it clear what makes something fit in this. Otherwise people might think it would include a video game where you pretend to be Carry Nation. I mean she was a "crusader" per one definition. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fiction set in ancient Rome by genre
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category is mis-named, as the contents are by medium rather than genre. However, it is in any case an unnecessary layer, so should be upmerged rather than renamed. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Medieval video games
- 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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Medieval video games to Category:Video games set in the Middle Ages
- Propose renaming Category:Medieval fantasy video games to Category:Fantasy video games set in the Middle Ages
- Propose renaming Category:Roman Empire video games to Category:Video games set in the Roman Empire
- Nominator's rationale: Rename as ambiguous; these are delightful anachronisms begging for clarification. The video games in question were not written in the named historical eras. The proposed new names will correspond to some siblings within Category:Video games with historical settings, Category:Middle Ages in popular culture and Category:Roman Empire in art and culture. Although there is a page Medieval fantasy which is about modern works set in the Middle Ages, it is only a poorly-referenced stub at the moment, and there are no sibling categories by that name e.g. in Category:Fantasy films by genre or Category:Fantasy novels by subgenre, so it is not well established as a sub-genre. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
merge to Category:1980s in video gaming, er, rename as proposed Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)- I don't understand why 1980s would be a good target; the games aren't limited to that decade. The proposed renames make sense to me. —
Ost (
talk)
21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just a joke there.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't get it. But I'm glad it was one. — Ost ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just a joke there.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename the current name makes it sound like these were made in the medieval period, etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename I can almost see the Borgias playing these. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:National Hockey League controversies
- 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: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons why its parent article was deleted. Like the list, the definition of "controversy" is ill-defined and based almost entirely on someone's opinion of what constitutes such. Nearly all of the entries fall into one of two groups: labour disputes and fighting/brawls/violence. Those both have their own categories, and I am not seeing any great reason to join them in this fashion. Reso lute 15:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Looking through the list, how would one ever fill the category? Benkenobi18 ( talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete These are much better categorized in labor or fight categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rhinolophus
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Rhinolophus to Category:Rhinolophidae
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Rhinolophus is basically the only genus in the family Rhinolophidae (there's one poorly known and questionable fossil too). This just adds an unnecessary layer to the categorization scheme. Ucucha ( talk) 04:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Family > genra is the standard category tree format. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
10:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not so; look at the other families in Category:Bats. Many don't have genus categories, especially the ones that contain only a single genus (e.g., Category:Miniopteridae, Category:Nycteridae). We subdivide large taxa by genus when there is a need, and in this case there is no need. Ucucha ( talk) 14:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted from
CFD 2013 January 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge there is nothing being gained by this division. If we had a sister cat we were also dividing into this would make sense, but we don't. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:University of California, Los Angeles School of Law alumni
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To match the article, which is at UCLA School of Law per WP:COMMONNAME. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per
Category:University of California, Los Angeles,
Category:University of California, Los Angeles people,
Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni etc.
Oculi (
talk)
17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but is it better to match the category structure or the article name? Both are in the guidelines, but I think matching the article title is more important here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Rename The standard is to append the word "alumni" after the name of the school and this should be a speedy rename. The name of the associated category is irrelevant here and avoids the utter illogic of having the category name not match the title of the parent article, though when it comes to Los Angeles and categories it seems that all logic is out the window. Alansohn ( talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep we generally discorage the use of acrynyms in category names, and I see no reason to do so here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- We also follow
WP:COMMONNAME and per
the school's website, the name is "UCLA School of Law", which is why the title of the parent article is
UCLA School of Law, matching the real-world usage. "University of California, Los Angeles School of Law" is a manufactured title with no legitimacy or provenance. It does not correspond to any reality and we should discourage such inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still looking for a better image, but this indicates that it may not be a manufactured name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- We also follow
WP:COMMONNAME and per
the school's website, the name is "UCLA School of Law", which is why the title of the parent article is
UCLA School of Law, matching the real-world usage. "University of California, Los Angeles School of Law" is a manufactured title with no legitimacy or provenance. It does not correspond to any reality and we should discourage such inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. There are conflicting "conventions", but I think here matching to the article name about the specific school trumps consistency with the other categories/article names. We do not discourage acronyms in category names if the article name uses acronyms: eg, Category:NATO, Category:OPEC, and many others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, C2D, and WP:COMMONAME. "UCLA" is widely recognised and also used in other alumni subcats. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted from
CfD 2013 January 20 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The problem here is that we have multiple naming conventions in play. The top parent article is University of California, Los Angeles. So to me it makes the most sense to use that as the base for all names associated with the institution. I guess it is safe to say that this one can not be decided on it's own. The decision really needs to be made in consideration of the rest of this group of categories. While the main article is at UCLA School of Law, the infobox uses University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question? Are you sure of your logic that "University of California, Los Angeles" should be "the base for all names associated with the institution"? I'd be happy to nominate
Category:UCLA Bruins and all of the categories within that structure to conform to your standard as
Category:University of California, Los Angeles Bruins, with several dozen other subcategories to be renamed including
University of California, Los Angeles Bruins women's track and field athletes. And unlike
UCLA School of Law, which uses the abbreviation as an institution operating as a school separate and apart from UCLA, the sports teams at the college are indisputably within the parent article
University of California, Los Angeles and the parent
Category:University of California, Los Angeles. I'm also not sure why the name in the infobox should carry any weight over the name of the article or the only name used on the school's website, but the name in the infobox is now "UCLA School of Law", thanks to the power of Wikipedia to correct such errors.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think UCLA School of Law is definitely the official (not to mention common) name of the school: just as
UCLA Law Review is the official name of the school's academic journal.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who issues the diploma and what is on that diploma?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue—I'm not a graduate. I'm not sure that's a good measure, however. The name of the universities I attended are in Latin script on my diplomas. "VNIVERSITAS etc." Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Who issues the diploma and what is on that diploma?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think UCLA School of Law is definitely the official (not to mention common) name of the school: just as
UCLA Law Review is the official name of the school's academic journal.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question? Are you sure of your logic that "University of California, Los Angeles" should be "the base for all names associated with the institution"? I'd be happy to nominate
Category:UCLA Bruins and all of the categories within that structure to conform to your standard as
Category:University of California, Los Angeles Bruins, with several dozen other subcategories to be renamed including
University of California, Los Angeles Bruins women's track and field athletes. And unlike
UCLA School of Law, which uses the abbreviation as an institution operating as a school separate and apart from UCLA, the sports teams at the college are indisputably within the parent article
University of California, Los Angeles and the parent
Category:University of California, Los Angeles. I'm also not sure why the name in the infobox should carry any weight over the name of the article or the only name used on the school's website, but the name in the infobox is now "UCLA School of Law", thanks to the power of Wikipedia to correct such errors.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment however many sports teams do not use the full name of the college or university in the categories. In fact, most either use an like UCLA, or are in forms like Category:Harvard Crimson athletes, even though the institution is Harvard University. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Templates for peripheries (Kallikratis)
- 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. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Templates for peripheries (Kallikratis) to Category:Greece region templates
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article Modern regions of Greece and other cats at Greece subdivision templates Constantine ✍ 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted from
CfD 2013 January 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- WikiProject Greece has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The new name is by far a lot more clear. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:University and college book publishing 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:University presses and move other contents to Category:Academic publishing companies. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Most of the companies in this cat also publish
magazines and/or
academic journals. Few companies concentrate on one of these publication types alone, so creating "University and college journal publishing companies" would just create a cat with almost the same content as this one.
Randykitty (
talk)
10:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have modified the proposal per the excellent suggestion of Peterkingiron below. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. I just checked the 5 articles listed in the category under letters J, K & L (i.e. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Karlstad University Press, Khazar University Press, Lehigh University Press and Liverpool University Press) ... and I found that of these 5, only Lehigh University Press restricted itself to publishing books. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:University presses and purge of those that are purely commercial publishers (e.g. of books fro university students. We have
Category:Books published by university presses, so why not one for the prsses themselves? The category may ast poresent include a few that belong with colleges that are strictly not universities, but I doubt that matters. I would add that the Oxford and Cambridge Univ Presses are not companies but emanations of the university; and I suspect that this applies elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It's terse and uses a well-known term, for which we already have a rather good list:
List of university presses.
I also think it's a good idea to exclude the purely commercial companies, which can be moved to the parent Category:Academic publishing companies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It's terse and uses a well-known term, for which we already have a rather good list:
List of university presses.
- Comment In general I like the idea to rename to the university press category, but should it not be Category:University and college presses since some of the categories are for college presses and not university presses. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:University presses, after looking at the contents I do not see anything that it is clear should be there and would not fit under the term "university press". It does not appear that any press uses "college" in its name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Henlopen Conference
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Delaware high school sports conferences. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to be expanded further, dubious notability of subject. Secret account 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Delaware high school sports conferences. The nominator is correct that this single-article category fails
WP:SMALLCAT, but should have checked whether upmerger was more appropriate than deletion. I have just
recategorised the head article from
Category:High school sports conferences and leagues in the United States to the more specific
Category:Delaware high school sports conferences, so upmerger will now have the same effect as deletion ... but the nominator has a responsibility to check these things before making the nomination.
Also, the notability of the Henlopen Conference is not relevant at CFD. Categories exist to faciliate navigation between existing articles, and if editors have concerns about the notability of a topic, the articles should be taken to WP:AFD. But so long as an article exists, a CFD discussion can only consider how to categorise it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) - upmerge per BHG
, at least for now. If one assumes that high school sports conferences are notable, then I know that there are more out there than just that one. However the only justification for the present category would be to include the schools, which seems less than defining. Mangoe ( talk) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see that the category has been further populated, so my support for the upmerge is unconditional.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It currently contains only one item, viz., the head article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see that the category has been further populated, so my support for the upmerge is unconditional.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete since the entire contents are already in the porposed target cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)----
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Monotheist Paganism
- 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category page presumably created by mistake by an editor who probably wanted to start a new article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no contents to category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1 if still empty on 3 February. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per BHG. Good to see you back! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 23:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete "creationism" :-) - Arjayay ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.