Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 22 January 24 >

January 23

Category:American Ballet Theatre repertory by season

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) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains American Ballet Theatre repertory by season which is a redirect to American Ballet Theatre. No content to categorize. Tassedethe ( talk) 22:09, 23 January 2016 (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.

Turkish engineering academics

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/rename to Category:Turkish industrial engineers, Category:Turkish mechanical engineers and Category:Turkish civil engineers; also to Category:Turkish engineering academics with manual checks that they are academics. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: These are all sub-categories of Category:Turkish engineering academics. These subcats should be renamed to fit the convention of Category:Engineering academics. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Per WP:C2C, clear naming convention. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If rename, purge not all of these folks are "academics" as in working in academia as opposed to working in the field, for the government, the UN, whatever. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Alternative rename/merge to Category:Turkish industrial engineers, Category:Turkish mechanical engineers and Category:Turkish civil engineers. "Engineering academics" seems to be a case of WP:NARROWCAT and the tree is poorly developed, while "industrial engineers" etc seem more defining and the trees are better developed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to engineers target. I do not see a compelling reason to split off enginners working primarily in the field and those who have major assignments at universities. Especially since there are university engineering professors who make more money from outside consulting work than they do from their position as a professor. We don't split our categories of historians between those who are independent scholars and those who have appointments in universities. And we take in broad swaths of people for long periods of time, so we end up with people in historian categories with little to no academic training. It works there and it should work here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:40, 26 March 2016 (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:British research associations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (conjugate) 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The fact that these organisations describe their orientation to Britain, rather than to the UK, does not seem significant. Those that remain share some history, but have developed considerably, and in various directions. The category has attracted additions which did not share anything much with the original members. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:31, 23 January 2016 (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.

OWU project categories

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) 07:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as the KYOVA project categories just below this nomination; the Ohio Wesleyan wikiproject was tagged as inactive in 2007 (!) and hasn't had a normal wikiproject-type discussion added to its talk page since 30 July 2006. Nyttend ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2016 (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.

KYOVA project categories

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) 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are all wikiproject maintenance categories for Wikipedia:WikiProject KYOVA Region. The project was tagged as inactive six years ago, and all messages on the project's talk page are mass messages from non-members that never got any responses, so I think we can assume that there's nobody home at the project to use these categories. Although some project categories have contents, these ones are all empty, so they're doing nothing except making extra whitespace at the tops of parent categories such as Category:Ohio articles missing geocoordinate data. Nyttend ( talk) 16:21, 23 January 2016 (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:1960 establishments in Akrotiri and Dhekelia

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 & delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting all parent categories that become empty after the above merge:
Nominator's rationale: Too little content in a very small territory (currently just two articles in a single year) to set up an entire tree with centuries and millennia Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, except the merger suggested by the nominator; there's no point in maintaining a huge tree for a little jurisdiction that easily fits within the larger Cyprus tree. It can't grow: a third-century BC establishment in the current territory of A-and-D is a third-century BC establishment in Cyprus, since the former didn't exist then but the latter did. Nyttend ( talk) 16:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose These are not part of Cyprus, they are British possesions. At a minimum the articles involved here need to stay in Category:1960 establishments in the British Empire. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, and it is actually acknowledged in the nomination already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • They are part of the geographical island of Cyprus. They are not part of the state of Cyprus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- They are on the island of Cyprus, though not part of the territory of either Cypriot republic. They will never get enough content to need splitting by date, but putting them in 1960s in Cyprus and in British Empire will be appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - categories in Cyprus refer to the Southern Cypriot domain and not to the island as a whole. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Too small to maintain; it's OK to group them with Cyprus since they are on the geographic island of Cyprus. If they are also added to the British Empire cats, this covers all the bases. (har) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2016 (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:Visitor centres in Gwynedd

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Both the categories here contain the same redirect. No need for either of them at this stage, per WP:SMALLCAT, suggest the content is upmerged to Category:Visitor centres in Wales. Sionk ( talk) 12:36, 23 January 2016 (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:Awards named after people

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. MER-C 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups a wide variety of awards in different countries, different industries and different academic disciplines. The only thing they have in common is that they were named after someone. About two thirds are named after a dead people who were notable for whatever the award represents (examples: 1, 2, 3) and about one third for the person who left money for the award in their will (examples: 4, 5, 6). Generally we group topics by what they are over how they are named. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified SoSivr as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Awards and prizes. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's not really nondefining because the awards are founded/titled/given in honor of a person(s) and sources often do mention that when speaking of the award. The problem is there will be so many, probably 20% of more of all awards, at least in the literary field which is the area I know about. One can imagine a sub-category called "Literary awards honoring people" a sub-cat of "Awards honoring people". IMO how the award is named is trivial, the substance being the award is in honor of someone. But again, it may be so many awards that it encompasses too many, I don't know. -- Green C 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Why an award is named for a person varries from award to award, it is not a unifying thing about the awards. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Every award I have seen is because it's in honor of someone. What other reasons are there? -- Green C 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Best Actress? (-: RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
"Best Actress" ? -- Green C 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners is an award that's not named after somebody. Category:Recipients of Civic Trust Awards is awarded to buildings, although I suspect a person still gives the acceptance speech. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
To clarify: Every award I have seen that is named after a person is because it's in honor of someone. Do you know anything different? All of these award (the one's named after a person) are in honor of someone. They are all of the same category: in honor of someone. -- Green C 13:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I suppose there are awards that are set up by someone or their relatives, via a bequest for example. The award would then be named after them because they stumped up the cash. I'm on the fence about this nomination, though I'm erring towards "Listify" and adding to List of prizes named after people. Sionk ( talk) 14:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes that's a good point I had not thought of endowment naming eg. Windham–Campbell Literature Prizes is named after the person who endowed the prize. So that negates the argument that all these awards are of the same categorical type (beyond the trivial fact of being named after a person). -- Green C 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Green Cardamom: Sorry if my replies were a bit dense; I wasn't following your train of thought. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:17, 24 January 2016 (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:Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor recipients

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) 07:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT
Winning the Medal of Honor is absolutely defining which is why every single one of these biography articles is already in either the Navy MoH or the Marines MoH category. But the U.S. military heroes aren't any more or less heroic because the physical award was created by the Tiffany & Co. jewelery company. The main article, Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor, discusses the artistic merits of Tiffany's work and lists the soldiers who received it. We shouldn't double categorize award winners based on which government contractor made the physical medal. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified JMOprof as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Military history. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Re-categorizing Medal of Honor awardees is apparently something Wikipedia does often. As conceived, this article was a list, with incidentals about the Navy's duality of awarding two types of Medals of Honor, one for combat (the cross), and one for professionalism (the classical inverted star), and its inconsistencies of administration. (Contrary to the above, no soldier was ever awarded a Tiffany Cross.) For instance Byrd was given the cross for exploration, when by extant rules being not in combat, it should have been the inverted star. He traded his in. I would love to know if he did it because it was the right thing to do, or because he saw it as an 'upgrade'. Could never find it, but if I do, I'd put it here. I think this list has a place here just like all the other MOH lists. user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 15:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Re-reading the proposal, I missed that it is about the category, and not the article. I do feel less strongly about the category, but I will note that there are equivalent categories to the lists above. If we are drawing a line, why here? user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 15:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Clarification @ JMOprof: I actually really like the article. I came across it from the jewelry side though: I created the Category:Tiffany & Co. category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The pattern of the medal of honor recieved is non-defiing to the individual. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose because in this case it is. At the time the Tiffany Cross existed, it was the award for valor in combat. The usual inverted star was the award for courage in professionalism. For example, Willis W. Bradley's Medal of Honor award (an inverted star) in 1917 was for courage in an explosion aboard ship not caused by enemy action. That distinction is defining. Congress fixed this duality in 1942, making a single naval service MOH for combat service only, and the cross dropped from use. (If I'm not allowed to comment twice, someone please so remark, and I'll act accordingly.) user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 17:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
According to the article, that intent wasn't consistently carried out and who received this style of medal wasn't even officially recorded, so we're identifying people receiving the medal if there's a picture of them wearing it. 6 of the 28 recipients are still unknown and 3 of the 22 known recipients didn't meet the eligibility requirements. RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment which, in a way, helps make my case. If one was a sailor or Marine in naval service between the start of WW1 and the start of WW2 and your newspaper's obituary said the deceased was awarded the MOH, that is not unambiguous. There are these two similarly titled awards. In researching the article (and I don't claim to be exhaustive) I still never found a case of the inverted star being awarded in the cross's stead. Between you, me, and the lamppost, I think the cited number of 28 is bogus, but that'd be original research. user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 16:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I think you're probably right and it's frustrating that the U.S. military records are so vague and, as you suggest, probably inaccurate and it's odd that the actual award didn't consistently follow Congressional intent that this be a sub-type of the MOH. Maybe they gave whatever physical medal style they had nearby? Those things make the article more interesting but make categorization more difficult. RevelationDirect ( talk)
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:Christianity falsehoods

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. MER-C 13:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category title is flamebait and overly broad. The articles listed could easily fit into religious forgeries or modern apocrypha.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 09:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC). Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 10:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A POV-magnet. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unless someone provides a good reason for retaining it with a rename to something such as "Christianity-related hoaxes". Nyttend ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This involves multiple deliberate forgeries, that really are not well descibed by any understanding of the title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would not mind a category on "modern apocrypha", but if this is already covered in Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, then there is an overlap. And "falsehoods" may be no more defining for these texts than for any number of pious fictions from Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Dimadick ( talk) 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I might have suggested a Christian forgeries category, but RevelationDirect has already found that it exists. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete purely WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, what's one person's falsehood is another's faith, and vice versa. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Damn you all for saying all the reasons. :P Jackninja5 ( talk) 05:13, 26 January 2016 (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:Postgraduate schools in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 13:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Postgraduate education may be acceptable as a generic term, but this particular kind of institutions is called Graduate school in the U.S., not "Postgraduate school". PanchoS ( talk) 07:30, 23 January 2016 (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:Cambridge schools

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:Schools offering Cambridge International Examinations. @ PanchoS: IMHO, deletion would not be right without taking the sub-cats at the same time; but in this case there is no consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Procedurally requesting deletion of this category tree and upmerge of its child categories, unless it can be shown that "Cambridge schools" is notable and usually a defining feature of these schools. PanchoS ( talk) 06:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Suggestion @ PanchoS: You might want to add all the sub-categories to the nomination. Even if other editors agree with you in spirit, they may not want to orphan the rest of this tree. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • IMHO unnecessary. Should the main category get deleted – and I'm really just requesting proof of notability and significance –, the subcategories wouln't become orphans but remain in the Category:Schools in Pakistan etc. trees until nominated in a followup. PanchoS ( talk) 11:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Usually I favor either starting at the bottom of the tree as a test case or nominating the whole tree but other editors may have other procedural preferences. I'll save my vote (below) for your subcategory follow-up nomination. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Small Subcategories if Kept/Neutral on Parent Category Assuming they get nominated, I would favor upmerging nearly all of the subcategories (except Bangladesh, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe) because they have 5 or less articles. I'll defer to others if this tree is worth keeping at all though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment—If the smaller subcategories are deleted, the New Zealand subcategory can go with them. The schools in the category are not "Cambridge Schools", but ordinary schools who offer Cambridge Exams as well as the NZ exam system NCEA. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Now that's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you, Beeswaxcandle! How is it about the rest of the countries? Are these "Cambridge schools" like "IB schools" are often called, or are these just schools with various curricula? Now, initially I nominated the category hoping somebody would go and help define "ahat "Cambridge schools" are… -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure whether you're saying No to me, or No to the nominator. But isn't the International Baccalaureate a type of exam, while Cambridge is simply one of many different examination boards? Sionk ( talk) 11:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I suggest "offering" rather than "taking". It's not the school that takes the exams. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to "offering" per Beeswaxcandle. A major curriculum followed by a significant number of schools is defining enough to warrant a category, and the comments by Peterkingiron and Beeswaxcandle re: the name itself are quite relevant. Nyttend ( talk) 17:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • As the nominator, I'm okay with a rename per Beeswaxcandle, too. I was just unsure about this category and wanted it to be discussed for notability and significance. PanchoS ( talk) 19:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete easily changeble criteria for inclusion, not really grouping the schools in a meaningful way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2016 (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:Graduate schools in the Philippines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: as in Category:Postgraduate schools by country fgnievinski ( talk) 03:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Tend to oppose. From what I can see, the education system in the Philippines rather follows the US nomenclature where these schools are named Graduate schools, not "Postgraduate schools". Consistency is a nice thing but maybe the whole category tree goes too far in imposing consistency on fundamentally different traditions of higher education. -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Many of these institutions use the term "Graduate School" in their name. The Philippines is highly influenced by the US, especially in educational system, so the same terminology will often occur. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- We should follow local usage, which in this case probably follows USA. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23&oldid=1138409831"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 22 January 24 >

January 23

Category:American Ballet Theatre repertory by season

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) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains American Ballet Theatre repertory by season which is a redirect to American Ballet Theatre. No content to categorize. Tassedethe ( talk) 22:09, 23 January 2016 (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.

Turkish engineering academics

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/rename to Category:Turkish industrial engineers, Category:Turkish mechanical engineers and Category:Turkish civil engineers; also to Category:Turkish engineering academics with manual checks that they are academics. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: These are all sub-categories of Category:Turkish engineering academics. These subcats should be renamed to fit the convention of Category:Engineering academics. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Per WP:C2C, clear naming convention. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If rename, purge not all of these folks are "academics" as in working in academia as opposed to working in the field, for the government, the UN, whatever. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Alternative rename/merge to Category:Turkish industrial engineers, Category:Turkish mechanical engineers and Category:Turkish civil engineers. "Engineering academics" seems to be a case of WP:NARROWCAT and the tree is poorly developed, while "industrial engineers" etc seem more defining and the trees are better developed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to engineers target. I do not see a compelling reason to split off enginners working primarily in the field and those who have major assignments at universities. Especially since there are university engineering professors who make more money from outside consulting work than they do from their position as a professor. We don't split our categories of historians between those who are independent scholars and those who have appointments in universities. And we take in broad swaths of people for long periods of time, so we end up with people in historian categories with little to no academic training. It works there and it should work here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:40, 26 March 2016 (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:British research associations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (conjugate) 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The fact that these organisations describe their orientation to Britain, rather than to the UK, does not seem significant. Those that remain share some history, but have developed considerably, and in various directions. The category has attracted additions which did not share anything much with the original members. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:31, 23 January 2016 (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.

OWU project categories

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) 07:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as the KYOVA project categories just below this nomination; the Ohio Wesleyan wikiproject was tagged as inactive in 2007 (!) and hasn't had a normal wikiproject-type discussion added to its talk page since 30 July 2006. Nyttend ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2016 (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.

KYOVA project categories

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) 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are all wikiproject maintenance categories for Wikipedia:WikiProject KYOVA Region. The project was tagged as inactive six years ago, and all messages on the project's talk page are mass messages from non-members that never got any responses, so I think we can assume that there's nobody home at the project to use these categories. Although some project categories have contents, these ones are all empty, so they're doing nothing except making extra whitespace at the tops of parent categories such as Category:Ohio articles missing geocoordinate data. Nyttend ( talk) 16:21, 23 January 2016 (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:1960 establishments in Akrotiri and Dhekelia

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 & delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting all parent categories that become empty after the above merge:
Nominator's rationale: Too little content in a very small territory (currently just two articles in a single year) to set up an entire tree with centuries and millennia Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, except the merger suggested by the nominator; there's no point in maintaining a huge tree for a little jurisdiction that easily fits within the larger Cyprus tree. It can't grow: a third-century BC establishment in the current territory of A-and-D is a third-century BC establishment in Cyprus, since the former didn't exist then but the latter did. Nyttend ( talk) 16:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose These are not part of Cyprus, they are British possesions. At a minimum the articles involved here need to stay in Category:1960 establishments in the British Empire. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, and it is actually acknowledged in the nomination already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • They are part of the geographical island of Cyprus. They are not part of the state of Cyprus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- They are on the island of Cyprus, though not part of the territory of either Cypriot republic. They will never get enough content to need splitting by date, but putting them in 1960s in Cyprus and in British Empire will be appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - categories in Cyprus refer to the Southern Cypriot domain and not to the island as a whole. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Too small to maintain; it's OK to group them with Cyprus since they are on the geographic island of Cyprus. If they are also added to the British Empire cats, this covers all the bases. (har) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2016 (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:Visitor centres in Gwynedd

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Both the categories here contain the same redirect. No need for either of them at this stage, per WP:SMALLCAT, suggest the content is upmerged to Category:Visitor centres in Wales. Sionk ( talk) 12:36, 23 January 2016 (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:Awards named after people

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. MER-C 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups a wide variety of awards in different countries, different industries and different academic disciplines. The only thing they have in common is that they were named after someone. About two thirds are named after a dead people who were notable for whatever the award represents (examples: 1, 2, 3) and about one third for the person who left money for the award in their will (examples: 4, 5, 6). Generally we group topics by what they are over how they are named. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified SoSivr as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Awards and prizes. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's not really nondefining because the awards are founded/titled/given in honor of a person(s) and sources often do mention that when speaking of the award. The problem is there will be so many, probably 20% of more of all awards, at least in the literary field which is the area I know about. One can imagine a sub-category called "Literary awards honoring people" a sub-cat of "Awards honoring people". IMO how the award is named is trivial, the substance being the award is in honor of someone. But again, it may be so many awards that it encompasses too many, I don't know. -- Green C 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Why an award is named for a person varries from award to award, it is not a unifying thing about the awards. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Every award I have seen is because it's in honor of someone. What other reasons are there? -- Green C 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Best Actress? (-: RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
"Best Actress" ? -- Green C 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners is an award that's not named after somebody. Category:Recipients of Civic Trust Awards is awarded to buildings, although I suspect a person still gives the acceptance speech. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
To clarify: Every award I have seen that is named after a person is because it's in honor of someone. Do you know anything different? All of these award (the one's named after a person) are in honor of someone. They are all of the same category: in honor of someone. -- Green C 13:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I suppose there are awards that are set up by someone or their relatives, via a bequest for example. The award would then be named after them because they stumped up the cash. I'm on the fence about this nomination, though I'm erring towards "Listify" and adding to List of prizes named after people. Sionk ( talk) 14:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes that's a good point I had not thought of endowment naming eg. Windham–Campbell Literature Prizes is named after the person who endowed the prize. So that negates the argument that all these awards are of the same categorical type (beyond the trivial fact of being named after a person). -- Green C 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Green Cardamom: Sorry if my replies were a bit dense; I wasn't following your train of thought. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:17, 24 January 2016 (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:Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor recipients

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) 07:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT
Winning the Medal of Honor is absolutely defining which is why every single one of these biography articles is already in either the Navy MoH or the Marines MoH category. But the U.S. military heroes aren't any more or less heroic because the physical award was created by the Tiffany & Co. jewelery company. The main article, Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor, discusses the artistic merits of Tiffany's work and lists the soldiers who received it. We shouldn't double categorize award winners based on which government contractor made the physical medal. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified JMOprof as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Military history. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Re-categorizing Medal of Honor awardees is apparently something Wikipedia does often. As conceived, this article was a list, with incidentals about the Navy's duality of awarding two types of Medals of Honor, one for combat (the cross), and one for professionalism (the classical inverted star), and its inconsistencies of administration. (Contrary to the above, no soldier was ever awarded a Tiffany Cross.) For instance Byrd was given the cross for exploration, when by extant rules being not in combat, it should have been the inverted star. He traded his in. I would love to know if he did it because it was the right thing to do, or because he saw it as an 'upgrade'. Could never find it, but if I do, I'd put it here. I think this list has a place here just like all the other MOH lists. user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 15:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Re-reading the proposal, I missed that it is about the category, and not the article. I do feel less strongly about the category, but I will note that there are equivalent categories to the lists above. If we are drawing a line, why here? user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 15:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Clarification @ JMOprof: I actually really like the article. I came across it from the jewelry side though: I created the Category:Tiffany & Co. category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The pattern of the medal of honor recieved is non-defiing to the individual. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose because in this case it is. At the time the Tiffany Cross existed, it was the award for valor in combat. The usual inverted star was the award for courage in professionalism. For example, Willis W. Bradley's Medal of Honor award (an inverted star) in 1917 was for courage in an explosion aboard ship not caused by enemy action. That distinction is defining. Congress fixed this duality in 1942, making a single naval service MOH for combat service only, and the cross dropped from use. (If I'm not allowed to comment twice, someone please so remark, and I'll act accordingly.) user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 17:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
According to the article, that intent wasn't consistently carried out and who received this style of medal wasn't even officially recorded, so we're identifying people receiving the medal if there's a picture of them wearing it. 6 of the 28 recipients are still unknown and 3 of the 22 known recipients didn't meet the eligibility requirements. RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment which, in a way, helps make my case. If one was a sailor or Marine in naval service between the start of WW1 and the start of WW2 and your newspaper's obituary said the deceased was awarded the MOH, that is not unambiguous. There are these two similarly titled awards. In researching the article (and I don't claim to be exhaustive) I still never found a case of the inverted star being awarded in the cross's stead. Between you, me, and the lamppost, I think the cited number of 28 is bogus, but that'd be original research. user:JMOprof  ©¿©¬ 16:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I think you're probably right and it's frustrating that the U.S. military records are so vague and, as you suggest, probably inaccurate and it's odd that the actual award didn't consistently follow Congressional intent that this be a sub-type of the MOH. Maybe they gave whatever physical medal style they had nearby? Those things make the article more interesting but make categorization more difficult. RevelationDirect ( talk)
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:Christianity falsehoods

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. MER-C 13:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category title is flamebait and overly broad. The articles listed could easily fit into religious forgeries or modern apocrypha.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 09:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC). Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 10:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A POV-magnet. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unless someone provides a good reason for retaining it with a rename to something such as "Christianity-related hoaxes". Nyttend ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This involves multiple deliberate forgeries, that really are not well descibed by any understanding of the title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would not mind a category on "modern apocrypha", but if this is already covered in Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, then there is an overlap. And "falsehoods" may be no more defining for these texts than for any number of pious fictions from Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Dimadick ( talk) 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I might have suggested a Christian forgeries category, but RevelationDirect has already found that it exists. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete purely WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, what's one person's falsehood is another's faith, and vice versa. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Damn you all for saying all the reasons. :P Jackninja5 ( talk) 05:13, 26 January 2016 (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:Postgraduate schools in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 13:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Postgraduate education may be acceptable as a generic term, but this particular kind of institutions is called Graduate school in the U.S., not "Postgraduate school". PanchoS ( talk) 07:30, 23 January 2016 (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:Cambridge schools

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:Schools offering Cambridge International Examinations. @ PanchoS: IMHO, deletion would not be right without taking the sub-cats at the same time; but in this case there is no consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Procedurally requesting deletion of this category tree and upmerge of its child categories, unless it can be shown that "Cambridge schools" is notable and usually a defining feature of these schools. PanchoS ( talk) 06:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Suggestion @ PanchoS: You might want to add all the sub-categories to the nomination. Even if other editors agree with you in spirit, they may not want to orphan the rest of this tree. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • IMHO unnecessary. Should the main category get deleted – and I'm really just requesting proof of notability and significance –, the subcategories wouln't become orphans but remain in the Category:Schools in Pakistan etc. trees until nominated in a followup. PanchoS ( talk) 11:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Usually I favor either starting at the bottom of the tree as a test case or nominating the whole tree but other editors may have other procedural preferences. I'll save my vote (below) for your subcategory follow-up nomination. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Small Subcategories if Kept/Neutral on Parent Category Assuming they get nominated, I would favor upmerging nearly all of the subcategories (except Bangladesh, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe) because they have 5 or less articles. I'll defer to others if this tree is worth keeping at all though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment—If the smaller subcategories are deleted, the New Zealand subcategory can go with them. The schools in the category are not "Cambridge Schools", but ordinary schools who offer Cambridge Exams as well as the NZ exam system NCEA. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Now that's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you, Beeswaxcandle! How is it about the rest of the countries? Are these "Cambridge schools" like "IB schools" are often called, or are these just schools with various curricula? Now, initially I nominated the category hoping somebody would go and help define "ahat "Cambridge schools" are… -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure whether you're saying No to me, or No to the nominator. But isn't the International Baccalaureate a type of exam, while Cambridge is simply one of many different examination boards? Sionk ( talk) 11:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I suggest "offering" rather than "taking". It's not the school that takes the exams. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to "offering" per Beeswaxcandle. A major curriculum followed by a significant number of schools is defining enough to warrant a category, and the comments by Peterkingiron and Beeswaxcandle re: the name itself are quite relevant. Nyttend ( talk) 17:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • As the nominator, I'm okay with a rename per Beeswaxcandle, too. I was just unsure about this category and wanted it to be discussed for notability and significance. PanchoS ( talk) 19:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete easily changeble criteria for inclusion, not really grouping the schools in a meaningful way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2016 (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:Graduate schools in the Philippines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: as in Category:Postgraduate schools by country fgnievinski ( talk) 03:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Tend to oppose. From what I can see, the education system in the Philippines rather follows the US nomenclature where these schools are named Graduate schools, not "Postgraduate schools". Consistency is a nice thing but maybe the whole category tree goes too far in imposing consistency on fundamentally different traditions of higher education. -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Many of these institutions use the term "Graduate School" in their name. The Philippines is highly influenced by the US, especially in educational system, so the same terminology will often occur. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- We should follow local usage, which in this case probably follows USA. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23&oldid=1138409831"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE