Category:Former municipalities of the canton of Aargau
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.
This is an other-stuff-exists argument, isn't it? There are also many categories without "canton of" in the name, by the way. See for example the tree of
Category:Valais. But the question really is whether "canton of" is needed in the category name at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, not really, I don't think. It's more of an argument based on the category naming guidelines, which are reflected in speedy criteria
C2B and
C2C. If these categories were renamed, they would be eligible for renaming back to the current names (if we ignore the fact that the renames were made in a full discussion, that is). "Canton of" is certainly needed in many of the core names, since there are cities that share the same name. The
Canton of Bern and
Bern are not the same thing, and likewise
Category:Canton of Bern and
Category:Bern each contain subcategories named after the pattern of the ultimate parent.
Category:Valais and its subcategories are also correctly named because the article is at
Valais. In that sense, the proposal to rename
Category:Former municipalities of Valais it in the previous discussion was not correct, and I withdraw that comment. As far as I can see, everything is currently named correctly.
Category naming practices usually regard it as irrelevant that a part of the name is superfluous; ie, the argument that we don't need "canton of" in the category names because only cantons are divided into municipalities should not be determinative. It's the same reason we have
Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) rather than
Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia—while a solid argument can be made that the "(U.S. state)" is superfluous (there are no U.S. Highways in the country of Georgia), we use the disambiguator because the parent
Category:Georgia (U.S. state) uses it. The same reasons apply here.
Ultimately, I think the base issue here is that there is a perceived need by the nominator to have all of the subcategories of
Category:Former municipalities of Switzerland by canton follow the same format ("canton of" vs. no "canton of"). I don't think this is desirable or needed, though, simply because out of the need or lack of need of disambiguation the parent categories and parent articles are not all in the same format in this regard.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
That's probably true. Cydebot only does what users tell it to do, so it must have been renaming some of the categories speedily to match the parent category formats.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:StLouisCityMO-geo-stub
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose stub type is for the city, not county, and that in Missouri, not Minnesota, so or elsewhere, so renaming it will collect all forms of StLouis not related to the city in Missouri --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paleontologist taskforce articles by quality
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Treatment of depression
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Renaming this topic category to match its eponymous article,
Management of depression. Per
Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic category, "Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic)".
Oppose, on the basis that 'Management' means something very similar to 'Treatment' in this case. There's no hard and fast rule that category names match exactly to an article name. It may be a better solution to question the name of the
Management of depression article, though I understand why it is named this way (people don't necessarily recover from depression, but simply learn how to manage the symptoms, in contrast to psychotic illnesses where the sufferer is unaware they are ill so wouldn't be in a position to 'manage' their own illness).
Sionk (
talk)
18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
"Treatment and management of ..." is a bit wordy for category names. Could we get away just the t-word or just the m-word, but with some category text explaining the scope of the category ?
DexDor (
talk)
22:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to match article. The place to decide the treatment v. management issue is in the article talk page, where people with more knowledge of that subject are more likely to show up and notifications are done better, not here in the categories discussion. We should follow the lead of the article on that issue.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Roman and pre-Roman Hispania
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Hispania is a Roman name of (part of) the Iberian Peninsula, so it is anachronistic to speak of "pre-Roman Hispania". Note that
Category:Hispania is a child category of the nominated category, which is very strange in the current set-up, but after renaming this parent-child relationship will make more sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Geography of Roman Italy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The category is not about geographical topics, it's about places in current Italy that played an important role in Roman history. A possible alternative rename is
Category:History of Roman Italy though I don't think this is really necessary because the adjective Roman makes the historical character of the category clear enough.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This is thoroughly covered at
Category:Ancient Roman geography and serves no useful navigational purpose. General geographical features should not be categorised under old political units. An attempt to do so would mean numerous categories on many geographical articles with little value. Something like this is better done in an article, where the importance and relevance of the place can be discussed in context (e.g. like the prose at
Alban Hills).
SFB18:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
However, the child categories contain names of geographical regions that are no longer in use, they were only used by the ancient Romans. For that purpose I think we need to keep this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Travel and communications in ancient Rome
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Topography of ancient Rome
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. There was no real discussion of issue addressed by the nomination, but the parent category is
Category:Ancient city of Rome, so the nomination satisfies speedy criterion
C2B and I think is safe to carry out. If users want to pursue any of the other issues discussed, the new category can be nominated.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Proposed name more clearly indicates that this category is neither about the Roman kingdom, nor about the Roman republic nor about the Roman empire, but it is really about the city.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jetboil
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anti-Americanists
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.
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. Also subjective inclusion criteria; the existence of this category potentially invites the inclusion of even American people who get deemed, for
WP:POV reasons by some
Fox News personality, as "unpatriotic". (I was actually surprised that the one existing entry was actually a foreigner and not an "unpatriotic" American citizen.)
Bearcat (
talk)
23:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Libre software
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.
Comment the problem is "free software", since "free" is highly ambiguous, meaning, "libre" or "gratis". The explaination given at the category description for "Free software" is also rather bad, since even libre software does not mean it will meet the definition of the FSF. We should instead use "libre software" as the category name, which would also free it from any implication of FSF-Stallman requirements, which many "free" software do not meet but which are still "free" as in libre. (to to mention the sticky "Open software" which does not mean free, since there are "open" software which is neither gratis nor libre) --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
06:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with the redirect. The terms "libre software" and "software libre" and "free software" (in the
FSF sense) are synonymous. Is it possible to redirect a category? --
K (
talk)
00:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former municipalities of the canton of Aargau
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.
This is an other-stuff-exists argument, isn't it? There are also many categories without "canton of" in the name, by the way. See for example the tree of
Category:Valais. But the question really is whether "canton of" is needed in the category name at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, not really, I don't think. It's more of an argument based on the category naming guidelines, which are reflected in speedy criteria
C2B and
C2C. If these categories were renamed, they would be eligible for renaming back to the current names (if we ignore the fact that the renames were made in a full discussion, that is). "Canton of" is certainly needed in many of the core names, since there are cities that share the same name. The
Canton of Bern and
Bern are not the same thing, and likewise
Category:Canton of Bern and
Category:Bern each contain subcategories named after the pattern of the ultimate parent.
Category:Valais and its subcategories are also correctly named because the article is at
Valais. In that sense, the proposal to rename
Category:Former municipalities of Valais it in the previous discussion was not correct, and I withdraw that comment. As far as I can see, everything is currently named correctly.
Category naming practices usually regard it as irrelevant that a part of the name is superfluous; ie, the argument that we don't need "canton of" in the category names because only cantons are divided into municipalities should not be determinative. It's the same reason we have
Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) rather than
Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia—while a solid argument can be made that the "(U.S. state)" is superfluous (there are no U.S. Highways in the country of Georgia), we use the disambiguator because the parent
Category:Georgia (U.S. state) uses it. The same reasons apply here.
Ultimately, I think the base issue here is that there is a perceived need by the nominator to have all of the subcategories of
Category:Former municipalities of Switzerland by canton follow the same format ("canton of" vs. no "canton of"). I don't think this is desirable or needed, though, simply because out of the need or lack of need of disambiguation the parent categories and parent articles are not all in the same format in this regard.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
That's probably true. Cydebot only does what users tell it to do, so it must have been renaming some of the categories speedily to match the parent category formats.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:StLouisCityMO-geo-stub
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose stub type is for the city, not county, and that in Missouri, not Minnesota, so or elsewhere, so renaming it will collect all forms of StLouis not related to the city in Missouri --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paleontologist taskforce articles by quality
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Treatment of depression
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Renaming this topic category to match its eponymous article,
Management of depression. Per
Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic category, "Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic)".
Oppose, on the basis that 'Management' means something very similar to 'Treatment' in this case. There's no hard and fast rule that category names match exactly to an article name. It may be a better solution to question the name of the
Management of depression article, though I understand why it is named this way (people don't necessarily recover from depression, but simply learn how to manage the symptoms, in contrast to psychotic illnesses where the sufferer is unaware they are ill so wouldn't be in a position to 'manage' their own illness).
Sionk (
talk)
18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
"Treatment and management of ..." is a bit wordy for category names. Could we get away just the t-word or just the m-word, but with some category text explaining the scope of the category ?
DexDor (
talk)
22:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to match article. The place to decide the treatment v. management issue is in the article talk page, where people with more knowledge of that subject are more likely to show up and notifications are done better, not here in the categories discussion. We should follow the lead of the article on that issue.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Roman and pre-Roman Hispania
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Hispania is a Roman name of (part of) the Iberian Peninsula, so it is anachronistic to speak of "pre-Roman Hispania". Note that
Category:Hispania is a child category of the nominated category, which is very strange in the current set-up, but after renaming this parent-child relationship will make more sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Geography of Roman Italy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The category is not about geographical topics, it's about places in current Italy that played an important role in Roman history. A possible alternative rename is
Category:History of Roman Italy though I don't think this is really necessary because the adjective Roman makes the historical character of the category clear enough.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This is thoroughly covered at
Category:Ancient Roman geography and serves no useful navigational purpose. General geographical features should not be categorised under old political units. An attempt to do so would mean numerous categories on many geographical articles with little value. Something like this is better done in an article, where the importance and relevance of the place can be discussed in context (e.g. like the prose at
Alban Hills).
SFB18:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
However, the child categories contain names of geographical regions that are no longer in use, they were only used by the ancient Romans. For that purpose I think we need to keep this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Travel and communications in ancient Rome
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Topography of ancient Rome
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. There was no real discussion of issue addressed by the nomination, but the parent category is
Category:Ancient city of Rome, so the nomination satisfies speedy criterion
C2B and I think is safe to carry out. If users want to pursue any of the other issues discussed, the new category can be nominated.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Proposed name more clearly indicates that this category is neither about the Roman kingdom, nor about the Roman republic nor about the Roman empire, but it is really about the city.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jetboil
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anti-Americanists
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.
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. Also subjective inclusion criteria; the existence of this category potentially invites the inclusion of even American people who get deemed, for
WP:POV reasons by some
Fox News personality, as "unpatriotic". (I was actually surprised that the one existing entry was actually a foreigner and not an "unpatriotic" American citizen.)
Bearcat (
talk)
23:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Libre software
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.
Comment the problem is "free software", since "free" is highly ambiguous, meaning, "libre" or "gratis". The explaination given at the category description for "Free software" is also rather bad, since even libre software does not mean it will meet the definition of the FSF. We should instead use "libre software" as the category name, which would also free it from any implication of FSF-Stallman requirements, which many "free" software do not meet but which are still "free" as in libre. (to to mention the sticky "Open software" which does not mean free, since there are "open" software which is neither gratis nor libre) --
70.51.200.101 (
talk)
06:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with the redirect. The terms "libre software" and "software libre" and "free software" (in the
FSF sense) are synonymous. Is it possible to redirect a category? --
K (
talk)
00:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.