- 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: Upmerge.
(non-admin closure) (
t ·
c)
buidhe
12:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Limba to Category:Limba (Cameroon)
- Nominator's rationale: Limba is a disambiguation page: this is about the Limba people and Limba language in Cameron, but there is also a Limba people and Limba language in Sierra Leone. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Selectively merge to parent categories per
WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles about a very small ethnic community.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have no objection to merge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:North East Delhi Residential Colonies to Category:East Delhi district
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in the category which happens to be part of East Delhi district. If kept it should rather become Category:Neighbourhoods of East Delhi district. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Category:Delhi residential colonies
- 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
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Twitch to Category:Twitch (service)
- Propose renaming Category:Twitch people to Category:Twitch (service) people
- Propose renaming Category:Twitch streamers to Category:Twitch (service) streamers
- Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, WP:C2D disambiguation per Twitch (service), opposed on Speedy page on the grounds that there are no other categories making use of the word. I've suggested similar exceptions myself in the past, but these have always been overruled by the weight of precedents. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Copy of Speedy page discussion
|
|---|
|
- Rename per nom and consensus at a multitude of cfds, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. Oculi ( talk) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator and per consensus at many CFDs over many years, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- oppose - There is absolutely no competition for the category name "Twitch" (see Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Twitch), that adding a disambiguator is pedantic, less concise, and unnecessary as there is currently no ambiguity. C2D has gone overboard. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. The main article is Twitch (service). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not needed when there are categories for each group; want to avoid category bloat Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a valid
container category; I'll go ahead and mark it as such. We could perhaps rename it to
Category:Owned-and-operated television stations in the United States by network to clarify its scope although that would break the logical progression of the categorization tree.
Iaritmioawp (
talk)
05:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- If it's a container category, which subcategory should
KFTR-DT be in? Also some of the owned-and-operated categories are defined as including affiliates, and others are subcategories of affiliates, but the articles
Owned-and-operated station and
Network affiliate say they are different.
Peter James (
talk)
23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- O&O is a type of affiliation. Ideally,
KFTR-DT would be put in
Category:UniMás owned-and-operated television stations in the United States (working title), a category that would need to be split from and made a subcategory of
Category:UniMás network affiliates.
Iaritmioawp (
talk)
05:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is distinct from affiliation according to both articles - how can it have one definition in the article namespace and another in categories?
Peter James (
talk)
23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- As the network affiliate article correctly states, "[n]otwithstanding this distinction, it is common (...) to refer to any station, O&O or otherwise, that carries a particular network's programming as an affiliate." Iaritmioawp ( talk) 17:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is distinct from affiliation according to both articles - how can it have one definition in the article namespace and another in categories?
Peter James (
talk)
23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- O&O is a type of affiliation. Ideally,
KFTR-DT would be put in
Category:UniMás owned-and-operated television stations in the United States (working title), a category that would need to be split from and made a subcategory of
Category:UniMás network affiliates.
Iaritmioawp (
talk)
05:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- If it's a container category, which subcategory should
KFTR-DT be in? Also some of the owned-and-operated categories are defined as including affiliates, and others are subcategories of affiliates, but the articles
Owned-and-operated station and
Network affiliate say they are different.
Peter James (
talk)
23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment if owned-and-operated has a defined meaning, perhaps it should be in capital letters. Otherwise, I suppose that nearly every tv station is owned by someone and operated by someone. For a container category it sure seems to have articles.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- The phrase has a meaning more specific than the combination of words, but only in the same way that "non-profit" doesn't just mean "not profitable". Peter James ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename
Timrollpickering (
talk)
19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Karon to Category:Karon (waka)
- Nominator's rationale: the bare title Karon is a dab page. These Karon are literary criticism (and works of literary criticism) of Japanese waka (poetry). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support- seems like a reasonable idea. Interestingly, the Karon meant here isn't mentioned at the dab page and doesn't appear to have an article. Reyk YO! 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
(non-admin closure) (
t ·
c)
buidhe
12:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Joinery to Category:Joinery (woodworking)
- Nominator's rationale: joinery is a disambiguation page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Have you looked at the disam page? It is nonsense. All the entries would go to Joinery (woodworking) if we had such an article, which we unfortunately don't. So what ambiguity???? Johnbod ( talk) 00:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There's no ambiguity. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Opposers have a fair point. This is more a matter of article space. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:04, 26 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Icterus
- 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: nomination withdrawn. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There was a discussion in February: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_5#Category:University_of_Rostock_faculty which was said to be a test case. At present we dont have a consistent policy. The word Faculty is used differently in different countries. Fakultäten, in German, refers to what might be called in the UK university departments or schools. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support, but you need to list all the subcats. (Or try them at speedy, but then one oppose leads back to cfd.) Oculi ( talk) 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Tried and failed with speedy nomination. The point of this is to see if the test case still has support. If this is agreed then I am happy to nominate all the others. Ideally speedily. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely. This usage of faculty is generally confined to North America. Faculties in most other countries (including the UK, incidentally) are departments or groups of departments. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural comment, Oculi is right that subcategories should be co-nominated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, both substantively and procedurally.
- Procedurally: the intent of this nomination is clearly to rename all the subcats ... so the subcats should be listed in the nomination. This is about the third or fourth stage of a set of sneaky attempts to rename a set of categories without tagging and listing them, and Rathfelder should have gotten the message already: there's no short cut around consensus building, and nothing in the guidance on CFD or on consensus to support this notion that a "test case" nomination can create such a procedural short cut.
- Even if all the subcats were listed, doing this only for Germany is a very bad idea. It sets a precedent for a debate about the usage in each country, and with over 200 countries in the world, that will be a nightmare that will clog up CFD for months until the editors with any relevant knowledge give up in despair and decisions get made by default by whichever passer-by takes time to comment.
- Substantively, this approach is a breach of policy. The problem here is that this set of categories uses two terms ("faculty" and "academics"), each of which is ambiguous in all varieties of English: see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/academic and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faculty. Per MOS:COMMONALITY we shouldn't be arguing the toss over how to balance these nuances in each language and each variant of English; we should be seeking a common terminology which avoids ambiguity in all variants of English. Off the top of my head "Academic staff" seems like a possibly suitable term, but we need an RFC to examine all the possibilities. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with
BrownHairedGirl that this issue is not confined to Germany, and that the notion of test cases in this sort of situation is very unsatisfactory. "Academic staff" does indeed seem possible. However I am not confident that that an RFC will not turn into a debate about the usage in each country. We have tried that strategy before, for example with Organisations and Organizations, without much success.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Rathfelder, this is different to the Organi[sz]ations debate. My takeaway from that was that a significant number of editors cling to their ENGVAR, so there's no point in trying to create exceptions to ENGVAR. That's why I now advocate sidestepping that issue, by following
MOS:COMMONALITY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is in fact Rathfelder who speedily renamed
Academics by university or college in Europe to use 'faculty', contrary to
2015_January_21#Category:Academics_by_university_in_Europe which chose academics. It's not particularly unusual to try test cases or indeed do things country by country - many editors lack the expertise not to mention the requisite time to file bulk noms (which can produce vituperation rather than resolution).
Oculi (
talk)
19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of consistency. If pressed I prefer "Academics" to "Faculty", but that is because it's the usage in the UK. I'm not hopeful that we can overcome the problems of
MOS:ENGVAR and the weird arguments people produce in respect of countries where English is not a native language. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try but as
Oculi points out that can involve a lot of time and effort. I'd like some way of assessing the likelihood of success before I try.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- That is precisely why I recommend sidestepping ENGVAR, and starting an RFC to apply MOS:COMMONALITY by finding an unambiguous common term. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of consistency. If pressed I prefer "Academics" to "Faculty", but that is because it's the usage in the UK. I'm not hopeful that we can overcome the problems of
MOS:ENGVAR and the weird arguments people produce in respect of countries where English is not a native language. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try but as
Oculi points out that can involve a lot of time and effort. I'd like some way of assessing the likelihood of success before I try.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is in fact Rathfelder who speedily renamed
Academics by university or college in Europe to use 'faculty', contrary to
2015_January_21#Category:Academics_by_university_in_Europe which chose academics. It's not particularly unusual to try test cases or indeed do things country by country - many editors lack the expertise not to mention the requisite time to file bulk noms (which can produce vituperation rather than resolution).
Oculi (
talk)
19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Rathfelder, this is different to the Organi[sz]ations debate. My takeaway from that was that a significant number of editors cling to their ENGVAR, so there's no point in trying to create exceptions to ENGVAR. That's why I now advocate sidestepping that issue, by following
MOS:COMMONALITY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment are these the same concept? I assume that faculty are researchers & teachers; academics can have no teaching duties and could include administrators, think-tank members, and the sort. Do I misunderstand?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- "Academics" also has the meaning of "academic topics". And even among the "people who work in academia" sense, it could easily encompass for instance postdoctoral researchers, who are generally not listed in "faculty" categories. Unfortunately "professors" also does not work, especially not for the UK rank system. "Faculty members" might be less ambiguous. If we're going to aim for a foolish consistency, we might consider that we have a Wikipedia article on this very topic, whose title is yet another phrase, Academic personnel. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is a separate category
Category:Academic administrators. In practice neither academics nor faculty are very tightly defined, but I think generally would be taken to include research or teaching, or, usually, both.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- This proposal is clearly not going anywhere, so I'm withdrawing it. I hope to be able to summon up enough enthusiasm to take up BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of an RFC. And perhaps also an RFC on the notion of test cases. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a tentative nomination from the list described and linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Non-disambiguation categories with eponymous disambiguation page in article space. In other words, the current category name matches A Clockwork Orange which is a disambiguation page. This category lists articles that are associated with A Clockwork Orange (novel) in various ways, including Nadsat (fictional language featured in the book), Girl Loves Me (song partly using Nadsat), Herman Makkink (sculptor whose pre-existing works were prominently featured in the film of the novel). The suggested split would make the category more defined and more consistent with others, but the latter page at least would probably have to be removed. The existing association-based category is simple and may be useful for navigation as it is, so is it better to keep it? – Fayenatic London 11:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Tentative oppose. I appreciate the thought that Fayenatic has applied to trying to resolve the clash between category and article titles. This pairing of Category:A Clockwork Orange with dab page A Clockwork Orange is quite a common type in the the list I created: the dab page is actually listing different aspects of the same topic, rather than separate topics. There are many other examples relating to creative works, and lots for the male/female split in US college sports (see e.g. Category:Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball / dab page Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball).
- In this case, the split proposed by FL doesn't seem to me to work well. There are some articles which should be in both the novel cats and works-based-on cat, and some more articles which may excluded altogether. Maybe there is something I have missed, but at this stage I am inclined to agree with FL's closing thought that maybe the status quo is the best way to categorise.
- However, that raises the question of whether the article-space pages are being handled correctly. For example, should some of them be Wikipedia:Set index articles?
- Note, I'm still a long way from a settled view on this. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here's another example Category:Kurhaus/ dab page Kurhaus. Isn't Kurhaus really a set index? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep and create two subcats. I can see the argument for separate categories but fail to understand why they shouldn't remain as part of a single parent, which would no doubt ease navigation. Grutness... wha? 02:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This cat covers all related topics well. It is misguided to firmly expect a 1:1 correlation between article and category. C2D sucks as written. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strikes me as splitting hairs a bit. Actually I could live with all three options - keeping single cat, separate cats for book and film (though probably least preferred), or making single cat a holder for subcats. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. These topics all belong together, at least within a common parent category, but with only 12 articles no split is warranted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Pointless category which contains only
Category:Grand Muftis of India and a navbox template. The category is already adequately parented, so no need for a merge.
The category name is an abbreviated for on Islamic Community of India, a poor-quality article which was redirected to Islam in India ... and the title ICI is a dab page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Related discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Template:ICI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, if I understand correctly this Islamic Community of India is a council that the Grand Mufti is presiding, but as the category only contains Category:Grand Muftis of India it is in effect redundant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename
Timrollpickering (
talk)
19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:House of Holland to Category:House of Holland (nobility)
- Nominator's rationale: disambiguation: House of Holland is a dab page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:24, 23 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Category:Native birds of Southern Mexico
- 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:Goodwood estate.
bibliomaniac
1
5
02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Goodwood to Category:Goodwood, West Sussex
- Nominator's rationale: Goodwood is a disambiguation page, so the page title needs disambiguation. Goodwood, West Sussex redirects to Goodwood House, but the scope of this category is greater than the house and its grounds, so see it seems to me to better to use the broader title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, if I understand correctly there is no village in West Sussex called Goodwood, thus all category content should be about the estate of
Goodwood House.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle, there is no village, but there clearly is an informal area called Goodwood. Excluding content not directly related to the house would mean that the category wouldn't include Goodwood Racecourse. That seems unhelpful to navigation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The articles mostly refer to the "Goodwood estate" and the racecourse is within that area. So far I have not found a reference to simply "Goodwood". Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Formal vote: alt rename to
Category:Goodwood estate, West Sussex.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds OK in principle. But, @
Marcocapelle, do we really need the "West Sussex"? Are there other Goodwood estates? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
06:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, so let it be
Category:Goodwood estate.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, let it be so. Category:Goodwood estate seems to be a good solution. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, so let it be
Category:Goodwood estate.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds OK in principle. But, @
Marcocapelle, do we really need the "West Sussex"? Are there other Goodwood estates? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
06:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Category:Goodwood estate does it. Johnbod ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Related discussion: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Category:Goodwood_Festival_of_Speed is a proposed merge to Category:Goodwod. If this discussion is closed as rename, then that merge target will need to be revised. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:48, 7 July 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Glyphis
- 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:Glaucidium (owl). bibliomaniac 1 5 23:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Option A
- Option B
- Nominator's rationale: The bare title Glaucidium is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Pygmy owl, and the scientific name Glaucidium (bird) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Glaucidium (owl) (all members of Glaucidium are owls), the scientific name is key is taxonomic classification and Wikipedia's categories following taxonomic Class/Order/Family/Genus and are organized the same way as the scientific names.-- Eostrix ( 🦉hoot hoot🦉) 11:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- The disambiguator "(owl)" is also fine with me. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
MER-C
17:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Basselin Fellows
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
- The Basselin Fellowship is a named scholarship for students attending Catholic University of America's Theological College, which mentions the award in passing. The 6 articles for recipients also mention the award in passing so it doesn't seem defining and all of them are already under Category:Catholic University of America alumni. The one person the award does seem defining for is the namesake benefactor, Theodore B. Basselin, that article lists the winners right here for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
MER-C
17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Fellows of the American Society for Cell Biology
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and, presumably, WP:OCAWARD
- We don't have a main article on a Fellow of the American Society for Cell Biology, in a list of many awards they issue the American Society for Cell Biology article lists ASCB Fellows (but that's a redlink as well), and there's only one biography article in the category ( Mary Dasso) which in passing mentions she was elected to the ASCB (is that a "fellow"?) That's all pretty thin for a category and there's isn't really anything to listify. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: upmerge. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Option A
- Option B
- Nominator's rationale: The bare title Fortunella is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Kumquat, and the scientific name Fortunella (plant) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge - Kumquats have been absorbed into the genus Citrus anyway, making Fortunella outdated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Merge is fine by me. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Upmerge.
(non-admin closure) (
t ·
c)
buidhe
12:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Limba to Category:Limba (Cameroon)
- Nominator's rationale: Limba is a disambiguation page: this is about the Limba people and Limba language in Cameron, but there is also a Limba people and Limba language in Sierra Leone. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Selectively merge to parent categories per
WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles about a very small ethnic community.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have no objection to merge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:North East Delhi Residential Colonies to Category:East Delhi district
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in the category which happens to be part of East Delhi district. If kept it should rather become Category:Neighbourhoods of East Delhi district. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Category:Delhi residential colonies
- 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
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Twitch to Category:Twitch (service)
- Propose renaming Category:Twitch people to Category:Twitch (service) people
- Propose renaming Category:Twitch streamers to Category:Twitch (service) streamers
- Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, WP:C2D disambiguation per Twitch (service), opposed on Speedy page on the grounds that there are no other categories making use of the word. I've suggested similar exceptions myself in the past, but these have always been overruled by the weight of precedents. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Copy of Speedy page discussion
|
|---|
|
- Rename per nom and consensus at a multitude of cfds, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. Oculi ( talk) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator and per consensus at many CFDs over many years, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- oppose - There is absolutely no competition for the category name "Twitch" (see Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Twitch), that adding a disambiguator is pedantic, less concise, and unnecessary as there is currently no ambiguity. C2D has gone overboard. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. The main article is Twitch (service). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not needed when there are categories for each group; want to avoid category bloat Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a valid
container category; I'll go ahead and mark it as such. We could perhaps rename it to
Category:Owned-and-operated television stations in the United States by network to clarify its scope although that would break the logical progression of the categorization tree.
Iaritmioawp (
talk)
05:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- If it's a container category, which subcategory should
KFTR-DT be in? Also some of the owned-and-operated categories are defined as including affiliates, and others are subcategories of affiliates, but the articles
Owned-and-operated station and
Network affiliate say they are different.
Peter James (
talk)
23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- O&O is a type of affiliation. Ideally,
KFTR-DT would be put in
Category:UniMás owned-and-operated television stations in the United States (working title), a category that would need to be split from and made a subcategory of
Category:UniMás network affiliates.
Iaritmioawp (
talk)
05:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is distinct from affiliation according to both articles - how can it have one definition in the article namespace and another in categories?
Peter James (
talk)
23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- As the network affiliate article correctly states, "[n]otwithstanding this distinction, it is common (...) to refer to any station, O&O or otherwise, that carries a particular network's programming as an affiliate." Iaritmioawp ( talk) 17:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is distinct from affiliation according to both articles - how can it have one definition in the article namespace and another in categories?
Peter James (
talk)
23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- O&O is a type of affiliation. Ideally,
KFTR-DT would be put in
Category:UniMás owned-and-operated television stations in the United States (working title), a category that would need to be split from and made a subcategory of
Category:UniMás network affiliates.
Iaritmioawp (
talk)
05:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- If it's a container category, which subcategory should
KFTR-DT be in? Also some of the owned-and-operated categories are defined as including affiliates, and others are subcategories of affiliates, but the articles
Owned-and-operated station and
Network affiliate say they are different.
Peter James (
talk)
23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment if owned-and-operated has a defined meaning, perhaps it should be in capital letters. Otherwise, I suppose that nearly every tv station is owned by someone and operated by someone. For a container category it sure seems to have articles.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- The phrase has a meaning more specific than the combination of words, but only in the same way that "non-profit" doesn't just mean "not profitable". Peter James ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename
Timrollpickering (
talk)
19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Karon to Category:Karon (waka)
- Nominator's rationale: the bare title Karon is a dab page. These Karon are literary criticism (and works of literary criticism) of Japanese waka (poetry). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support- seems like a reasonable idea. Interestingly, the Karon meant here isn't mentioned at the dab page and doesn't appear to have an article. Reyk YO! 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
(non-admin closure) (
t ·
c)
buidhe
12:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Joinery to Category:Joinery (woodworking)
- Nominator's rationale: joinery is a disambiguation page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Have you looked at the disam page? It is nonsense. All the entries would go to Joinery (woodworking) if we had such an article, which we unfortunately don't. So what ambiguity???? Johnbod ( talk) 00:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There's no ambiguity. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Opposers have a fair point. This is more a matter of article space. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:04, 26 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Icterus
- 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: nomination withdrawn. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There was a discussion in February: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_5#Category:University_of_Rostock_faculty which was said to be a test case. At present we dont have a consistent policy. The word Faculty is used differently in different countries. Fakultäten, in German, refers to what might be called in the UK university departments or schools. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support, but you need to list all the subcats. (Or try them at speedy, but then one oppose leads back to cfd.) Oculi ( talk) 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Tried and failed with speedy nomination. The point of this is to see if the test case still has support. If this is agreed then I am happy to nominate all the others. Ideally speedily. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely. This usage of faculty is generally confined to North America. Faculties in most other countries (including the UK, incidentally) are departments or groups of departments. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural comment, Oculi is right that subcategories should be co-nominated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, both substantively and procedurally.
- Procedurally: the intent of this nomination is clearly to rename all the subcats ... so the subcats should be listed in the nomination. This is about the third or fourth stage of a set of sneaky attempts to rename a set of categories without tagging and listing them, and Rathfelder should have gotten the message already: there's no short cut around consensus building, and nothing in the guidance on CFD or on consensus to support this notion that a "test case" nomination can create such a procedural short cut.
- Even if all the subcats were listed, doing this only for Germany is a very bad idea. It sets a precedent for a debate about the usage in each country, and with over 200 countries in the world, that will be a nightmare that will clog up CFD for months until the editors with any relevant knowledge give up in despair and decisions get made by default by whichever passer-by takes time to comment.
- Substantively, this approach is a breach of policy. The problem here is that this set of categories uses two terms ("faculty" and "academics"), each of which is ambiguous in all varieties of English: see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/academic and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faculty. Per MOS:COMMONALITY we shouldn't be arguing the toss over how to balance these nuances in each language and each variant of English; we should be seeking a common terminology which avoids ambiguity in all variants of English. Off the top of my head "Academic staff" seems like a possibly suitable term, but we need an RFC to examine all the possibilities. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with
BrownHairedGirl that this issue is not confined to Germany, and that the notion of test cases in this sort of situation is very unsatisfactory. "Academic staff" does indeed seem possible. However I am not confident that that an RFC will not turn into a debate about the usage in each country. We have tried that strategy before, for example with Organisations and Organizations, without much success.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Rathfelder, this is different to the Organi[sz]ations debate. My takeaway from that was that a significant number of editors cling to their ENGVAR, so there's no point in trying to create exceptions to ENGVAR. That's why I now advocate sidestepping that issue, by following
MOS:COMMONALITY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is in fact Rathfelder who speedily renamed
Academics by university or college in Europe to use 'faculty', contrary to
2015_January_21#Category:Academics_by_university_in_Europe which chose academics. It's not particularly unusual to try test cases or indeed do things country by country - many editors lack the expertise not to mention the requisite time to file bulk noms (which can produce vituperation rather than resolution).
Oculi (
talk)
19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of consistency. If pressed I prefer "Academics" to "Faculty", but that is because it's the usage in the UK. I'm not hopeful that we can overcome the problems of
MOS:ENGVAR and the weird arguments people produce in respect of countries where English is not a native language. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try but as
Oculi points out that can involve a lot of time and effort. I'd like some way of assessing the likelihood of success before I try.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- That is precisely why I recommend sidestepping ENGVAR, and starting an RFC to apply MOS:COMMONALITY by finding an unambiguous common term. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of consistency. If pressed I prefer "Academics" to "Faculty", but that is because it's the usage in the UK. I'm not hopeful that we can overcome the problems of
MOS:ENGVAR and the weird arguments people produce in respect of countries where English is not a native language. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try but as
Oculi points out that can involve a lot of time and effort. I'd like some way of assessing the likelihood of success before I try.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is in fact Rathfelder who speedily renamed
Academics by university or college in Europe to use 'faculty', contrary to
2015_January_21#Category:Academics_by_university_in_Europe which chose academics. It's not particularly unusual to try test cases or indeed do things country by country - many editors lack the expertise not to mention the requisite time to file bulk noms (which can produce vituperation rather than resolution).
Oculi (
talk)
19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Rathfelder, this is different to the Organi[sz]ations debate. My takeaway from that was that a significant number of editors cling to their ENGVAR, so there's no point in trying to create exceptions to ENGVAR. That's why I now advocate sidestepping that issue, by following
MOS:COMMONALITY. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment are these the same concept? I assume that faculty are researchers & teachers; academics can have no teaching duties and could include administrators, think-tank members, and the sort. Do I misunderstand?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- "Academics" also has the meaning of "academic topics". And even among the "people who work in academia" sense, it could easily encompass for instance postdoctoral researchers, who are generally not listed in "faculty" categories. Unfortunately "professors" also does not work, especially not for the UK rank system. "Faculty members" might be less ambiguous. If we're going to aim for a foolish consistency, we might consider that we have a Wikipedia article on this very topic, whose title is yet another phrase, Academic personnel. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is a separate category
Category:Academic administrators. In practice neither academics nor faculty are very tightly defined, but I think generally would be taken to include research or teaching, or, usually, both.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- This proposal is clearly not going anywhere, so I'm withdrawing it. I hope to be able to summon up enough enthusiasm to take up BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of an RFC. And perhaps also an RFC on the notion of test cases. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a tentative nomination from the list described and linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Non-disambiguation categories with eponymous disambiguation page in article space. In other words, the current category name matches A Clockwork Orange which is a disambiguation page. This category lists articles that are associated with A Clockwork Orange (novel) in various ways, including Nadsat (fictional language featured in the book), Girl Loves Me (song partly using Nadsat), Herman Makkink (sculptor whose pre-existing works were prominently featured in the film of the novel). The suggested split would make the category more defined and more consistent with others, but the latter page at least would probably have to be removed. The existing association-based category is simple and may be useful for navigation as it is, so is it better to keep it? – Fayenatic London 11:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Tentative oppose. I appreciate the thought that Fayenatic has applied to trying to resolve the clash between category and article titles. This pairing of Category:A Clockwork Orange with dab page A Clockwork Orange is quite a common type in the the list I created: the dab page is actually listing different aspects of the same topic, rather than separate topics. There are many other examples relating to creative works, and lots for the male/female split in US college sports (see e.g. Category:Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball / dab page Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball).
- In this case, the split proposed by FL doesn't seem to me to work well. There are some articles which should be in both the novel cats and works-based-on cat, and some more articles which may excluded altogether. Maybe there is something I have missed, but at this stage I am inclined to agree with FL's closing thought that maybe the status quo is the best way to categorise.
- However, that raises the question of whether the article-space pages are being handled correctly. For example, should some of them be Wikipedia:Set index articles?
- Note, I'm still a long way from a settled view on this. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here's another example Category:Kurhaus/ dab page Kurhaus. Isn't Kurhaus really a set index? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep and create two subcats. I can see the argument for separate categories but fail to understand why they shouldn't remain as part of a single parent, which would no doubt ease navigation. Grutness... wha? 02:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This cat covers all related topics well. It is misguided to firmly expect a 1:1 correlation between article and category. C2D sucks as written. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strikes me as splitting hairs a bit. Actually I could live with all three options - keeping single cat, separate cats for book and film (though probably least preferred), or making single cat a holder for subcats. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. These topics all belong together, at least within a common parent category, but with only 12 articles no split is warranted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Pointless category which contains only
Category:Grand Muftis of India and a navbox template. The category is already adequately parented, so no need for a merge.
The category name is an abbreviated for on Islamic Community of India, a poor-quality article which was redirected to Islam in India ... and the title ICI is a dab page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Related discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Template:ICI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, if I understand correctly this Islamic Community of India is a council that the Grand Mufti is presiding, but as the category only contains Category:Grand Muftis of India it is in effect redundant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename
Timrollpickering (
talk)
19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:House of Holland to Category:House of Holland (nobility)
- Nominator's rationale: disambiguation: House of Holland is a dab page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:24, 23 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Category:Native birds of Southern Mexico
- 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:Goodwood estate.
bibliomaniac
1
5
02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Goodwood to Category:Goodwood, West Sussex
- Nominator's rationale: Goodwood is a disambiguation page, so the page title needs disambiguation. Goodwood, West Sussex redirects to Goodwood House, but the scope of this category is greater than the house and its grounds, so see it seems to me to better to use the broader title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, if I understand correctly there is no village in West Sussex called Goodwood, thus all category content should be about the estate of
Goodwood House.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle, there is no village, but there clearly is an informal area called Goodwood. Excluding content not directly related to the house would mean that the category wouldn't include Goodwood Racecourse. That seems unhelpful to navigation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The articles mostly refer to the "Goodwood estate" and the racecourse is within that area. So far I have not found a reference to simply "Goodwood". Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Formal vote: alt rename to
Category:Goodwood estate, West Sussex.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds OK in principle. But, @
Marcocapelle, do we really need the "West Sussex"? Are there other Goodwood estates? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
06:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, so let it be
Category:Goodwood estate.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, let it be so. Category:Goodwood estate seems to be a good solution. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, so let it be
Category:Goodwood estate.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds OK in principle. But, @
Marcocapelle, do we really need the "West Sussex"? Are there other Goodwood estates? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
06:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Category:Goodwood estate does it. Johnbod ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Related discussion: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Category:Goodwood_Festival_of_Speed is a proposed merge to Category:Goodwod. If this discussion is closed as rename, then that merge target will need to be revised. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:48, 7 July 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Glyphis
- 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:Glaucidium (owl). bibliomaniac 1 5 23:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Option A
- Option B
- Nominator's rationale: The bare title Glaucidium is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Pygmy owl, and the scientific name Glaucidium (bird) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Glaucidium (owl) (all members of Glaucidium are owls), the scientific name is key is taxonomic classification and Wikipedia's categories following taxonomic Class/Order/Family/Genus and are organized the same way as the scientific names.-- Eostrix ( 🦉hoot hoot🦉) 11:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- The disambiguator "(owl)" is also fine with me. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
MER-C
17:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Basselin Fellows
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
- The Basselin Fellowship is a named scholarship for students attending Catholic University of America's Theological College, which mentions the award in passing. The 6 articles for recipients also mention the award in passing so it doesn't seem defining and all of them are already under Category:Catholic University of America alumni. The one person the award does seem defining for is the namesake benefactor, Theodore B. Basselin, that article lists the winners right here for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
MER-C
17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Fellows of the American Society for Cell Biology
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and, presumably, WP:OCAWARD
- We don't have a main article on a Fellow of the American Society for Cell Biology, in a list of many awards they issue the American Society for Cell Biology article lists ASCB Fellows (but that's a redlink as well), and there's only one biography article in the category ( Mary Dasso) which in passing mentions she was elected to the ASCB (is that a "fellow"?) That's all pretty thin for a category and there's isn't really anything to listify. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: upmerge. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Option A
- Option B
- Nominator's rationale: The bare title Fortunella is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Kumquat, and the scientific name Fortunella (plant) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge - Kumquats have been absorbed into the genus Citrus anyway, making Fortunella outdated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Merge is fine by me. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:48, 2 July 2020 (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.