Category:Mass media of the military of 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:not renamed. bibliomaniac15 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'd say Oculi is rightly referring to the category tree and our responsibility to treat the US military just the same as others. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:27, 23 July 2021 (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:Wikipedia Mediation Committee members
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as creator, unnecessary, one userpage in it, historical, redundant, etc.
Daniel (
talk) 10:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems completely obsolete. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A category created by a user who this was their second to last edit over 6 years ago, and who is also its only member. Additionally, the page associated with the category,
Stem5 does not exist.
Gonnym (
talk) 09:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't seem to serve a navigational nor a maintenance purpose. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete No use ar all! --
Just N. (
talk) 19:38, 23 July 2021 (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.
Members of Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all according to nom. bibliomaniac15 05:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Though I have to say, I have no idea how this current system of using abbreviations that might not be clear for people outside the field (and I count myself with those people) is still around. Category names such as
Category:Members of the Polish Sejm 2019–2023 are much more clear.
Wikipedia:Categorization#Naming conventions point number 4 address this. To be clear, I don't oppose the above proposal as it isn't an issue in only one category.
Gonnym (
talk) 09:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
That's also acceptable to me, and would correspond to subcats of
Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament by term. It's not necessary to match the short form used in "MPs" and "MEPs" since those are longer-established and better known. –
FayenaticLondon 11:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Members of the Senedd" is unnecessarily verbose. Per
WP:ABBREV, the term "MS" should be expanded on its first use, which will nearly always be in the lead of the article. That way, no prior knowledge of the field is needed to see what the abbreviation means. I have done big AWB runs to find and fix biogs of TDs and MPs and MSPs to ensure that they have the appropriate expansion in the lead — e.g. "
Teachta Dála (TD)" or "
Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) — and will be happy to do the same for MSs. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, preferable to leaving the current category as "Welsh AMs", though per the previous discussion I am no fan of naming the 2016-2021 category "MSs" when they were only MSs for one of those 5 years. Anyway, with fixed term parliaments where the year of the next parliament is unlikely to change, it makes sense to add an end date.
Sionk (
talk) 14:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I believe it is normal practice for categories to use the final name rather than the initial name for the topic. –
FayenaticLondon 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support the change to "MSs". I opposed the previous nomination due to inconsistency, but this one reflects the official change in 2020 and applies it to both the affected categories. I prefer the brevity of "MSs", and per my comment above, spelling out "Members of the Senedd" is un-needed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 02:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, but shouldn't there be brackets?
Unreal7 (
talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Change to MS only from 2021 election. The new name Senedd was only recently adopted so that they were AMs for most of the old assembly term.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support - support all aspects of the nom.
Category:Wales AMs 2016–2021 should have been changed to MSs in 2020, when they became MSs.
Oculi (
talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete These by session categories lead to way too much category clutter.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
In previous CFDs, British and other European categories by term were kept in 2011, but Canadian and Alaskan categories were recently deleted; for links, see
Category talk:Legislators by term. –
FayenaticLondon 23:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The decision back in 2011 was a horrible one. We have way too many people in 5 or more by term categories and it is leading to way too may category clutter. Categories should be a few key points, not fine minutia like listing of everything. That someone was in a legislative body is enough to categorize by, not every term they served.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 12:51, 20 August 2021 (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.
KSI
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. bibliomaniac15 17:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: rename, The title of the
KSI article is no longer "KSI (entertainer)", it is now simply "KSI". Therefore, the titles of KSI-related categories should be updated to reflect this change.
Timwikisidemen (
talk) 07:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename The main article was created at
KSI in 2013 and appears to have remained stable so we should defer. (If that's a bad article name,
WP:RM is the right venue followed by a speedy rename of this cat.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. It irks me that simplistic C2D category moves such as these are often derailed by editors who think that the world will end if we name categories eponymously. If anything, keeping it as is does the opposite of aiding navigation.
Sean Stephens (
talk) 10:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
It irks me when editors don't follow or understand the guidelines yet think they do. C2D exists for a reason. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'll bite. Would you care to elaborate? C2D exists to resolve ambiguity, and if consensus has determined a page as the primary topic, the category isn't ambiguous. There's no changing my mind on this issue.
Sean Stephens (
talk) 11:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)reply
No,
WP:C2D exists to resolve inconsistency quickly, but only where there is no ambiguity. A
WP:primary topic is by definition only a thing in cases where the name is ambiguous. In cases of ambiguity, a full discussion is required, and this is helpful as it leaves a record of the decision, which is easily traceable using "what links here". –
FayenaticLondon 23:10, 5 August 2021 (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:Mass media of the military of 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:not renamed. bibliomaniac15 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'd say Oculi is rightly referring to the category tree and our responsibility to treat the US military just the same as others. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:27, 23 July 2021 (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:Wikipedia Mediation Committee members
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as creator, unnecessary, one userpage in it, historical, redundant, etc.
Daniel (
talk) 10:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems completely obsolete. --
Just N. (
talk) 19:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A category created by a user who this was their second to last edit over 6 years ago, and who is also its only member. Additionally, the page associated with the category,
Stem5 does not exist.
Gonnym (
talk) 09:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't seem to serve a navigational nor a maintenance purpose. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete No use ar all! --
Just N. (
talk) 19:38, 23 July 2021 (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.
Members of Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all according to nom. bibliomaniac15 05:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Though I have to say, I have no idea how this current system of using abbreviations that might not be clear for people outside the field (and I count myself with those people) is still around. Category names such as
Category:Members of the Polish Sejm 2019–2023 are much more clear.
Wikipedia:Categorization#Naming conventions point number 4 address this. To be clear, I don't oppose the above proposal as it isn't an issue in only one category.
Gonnym (
talk) 09:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
That's also acceptable to me, and would correspond to subcats of
Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament by term. It's not necessary to match the short form used in "MPs" and "MEPs" since those are longer-established and better known. –
FayenaticLondon 11:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Members of the Senedd" is unnecessarily verbose. Per
WP:ABBREV, the term "MS" should be expanded on its first use, which will nearly always be in the lead of the article. That way, no prior knowledge of the field is needed to see what the abbreviation means. I have done big AWB runs to find and fix biogs of TDs and MPs and MSPs to ensure that they have the appropriate expansion in the lead — e.g. "
Teachta Dála (TD)" or "
Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) — and will be happy to do the same for MSs. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, preferable to leaving the current category as "Welsh AMs", though per the previous discussion I am no fan of naming the 2016-2021 category "MSs" when they were only MSs for one of those 5 years. Anyway, with fixed term parliaments where the year of the next parliament is unlikely to change, it makes sense to add an end date.
Sionk (
talk) 14:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I believe it is normal practice for categories to use the final name rather than the initial name for the topic. –
FayenaticLondon 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support the change to "MSs". I opposed the previous nomination due to inconsistency, but this one reflects the official change in 2020 and applies it to both the affected categories. I prefer the brevity of "MSs", and per my comment above, spelling out "Members of the Senedd" is un-needed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 02:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, but shouldn't there be brackets?
Unreal7 (
talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Change to MS only from 2021 election. The new name Senedd was only recently adopted so that they were AMs for most of the old assembly term.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support - support all aspects of the nom.
Category:Wales AMs 2016–2021 should have been changed to MSs in 2020, when they became MSs.
Oculi (
talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete These by session categories lead to way too much category clutter.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
In previous CFDs, British and other European categories by term were kept in 2011, but Canadian and Alaskan categories were recently deleted; for links, see
Category talk:Legislators by term. –
FayenaticLondon 23:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The decision back in 2011 was a horrible one. We have way too many people in 5 or more by term categories and it is leading to way too may category clutter. Categories should be a few key points, not fine minutia like listing of everything. That someone was in a legislative body is enough to categorize by, not every term they served.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 12:51, 20 August 2021 (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.
KSI
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. bibliomaniac15 17:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: rename, The title of the
KSI article is no longer "KSI (entertainer)", it is now simply "KSI". Therefore, the titles of KSI-related categories should be updated to reflect this change.
Timwikisidemen (
talk) 07:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename The main article was created at
KSI in 2013 and appears to have remained stable so we should defer. (If that's a bad article name,
WP:RM is the right venue followed by a speedy rename of this cat.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. It irks me that simplistic C2D category moves such as these are often derailed by editors who think that the world will end if we name categories eponymously. If anything, keeping it as is does the opposite of aiding navigation.
Sean Stephens (
talk) 10:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
It irks me when editors don't follow or understand the guidelines yet think they do. C2D exists for a reason. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'll bite. Would you care to elaborate? C2D exists to resolve ambiguity, and if consensus has determined a page as the primary topic, the category isn't ambiguous. There's no changing my mind on this issue.
Sean Stephens (
talk) 11:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)reply
No,
WP:C2D exists to resolve inconsistency quickly, but only where there is no ambiguity. A
WP:primary topic is by definition only a thing in cases where the name is ambiguous. In cases of ambiguity, a full discussion is required, and this is helpful as it leaves a record of the decision, which is easily traceable using "what links here". –
FayenaticLondon 23:10, 5 August 2021 (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.