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: most subcats of
Category:Language education by language are probably wrong. "English-language education" refers to education carried out in the english language, but not education of the english language. for example, teaching sci and math in english in malaysia is an aspect of "English-language education", but not education of the language.
some subcats correctly reflect this.
Category:English-language schools contains english medium schools, but not language schools that teach english.
RZuo (
talk) 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 09:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 08:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep unless a better alternative can be suggested. Like many categories this one is somewhat diffuse in its scope, but that is no harm. Trying to make categories too precise tends to result in lots of small categories which them have to be merged back. English-medium Education is the gateway to well-paid work in many parts of India.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle and
Peterkingiron: This was relisted (more than twice, contrary to
WP:RELIST instructions). I'd have preferred closing keep, and starting a new broader discussion. But now we are discussing:
Support that, per actual content of the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- There are several kinds of institution for which the present name may be a high level parent:
"English-medium education" where the instruction is given in English (or mainly so) where that is not the main language
"English language-schools" whose function is to teach English as a second language.
"schools teaching in English language", for example in French-speaking Quebec; or in Wales where some schools teach in Welsh
Universities teaching their courses in English (for example in Netherlands or Japan), because English is the main language of scientific communication.
To some extent these will inevitably overlap.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:07, 8 January 2023 (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:Anti-patterns
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: "
Anti-pattern" is too vague to be useful on its own. Most readers are probably looking for examples of a specific type of anti-pattern, but this category groups topics that are only vaguely related together. It's also currently a sub-category of multiple software development categories, despite not all the anti-patterns being related to software development, which only makes things more confusing.
ZerbuTalk 08:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I have checked a significant number of articles and they were all about software programming. Can you give a few examples of articles that would belong in
Category:Project management anti-patterns? I also noted that a number of articles were not about anti-patterns but instead more generally about poor programming habits, where would they go?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Instruction creep,
Law of the instrument,
Shturmovshchina are a few random examples. I suggested splitting because I felt it would be better than just removing articles, but if others feel differently, an alternative could be to rename the category and remove the unrelated articles. As for the articles about poor programming habits, if the consensus is to split, then perhaps they could be moved to a third category (maybe
Category:Code smells, since
code smell is a common term for poor programming habits).
ZerbuTalk 09:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I would remove these three altogether and others as well. The subjects of the articles should be called anti-patterns, and that is more than often not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment:: The basic concept of an "anti-pattern" is pretty general, and applies to domains outside of software engineering and project management. E.g.
Peter principle,
Tick-box culture,
Counterproductive work behavior describe anti-patterns in organizational management, though not necessarily using the specific term "anti-pattern".
73.223.72.200 (
talk) 02:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 08:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
IP user is right, in that concepts are not necessarily using the specific term "anti-pattern", i.e. anti-pattern is not a defining characteristic in many cases. Purge the category and only keep articles for which it actually is defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Purge per Marcocapelle —
WP:NOR I've spent a significant portion of my life in software research and engineering, many of these concepts are common, but the term anti-patterns is new to me. Limit the category to those the literature has specifically identified as anti-patterns. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:10, 10 January 2023 (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: These are overcategorizations based on venue per
WP:OCVENUE "There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there..."
User:Namiba 22:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Won't contest this one if it's congruent with (policy) and fair for everyone ..
Danielsltt (
talk) 22:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge targets? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I checked Tampa Bay and Toronto and all articles in there are also in an indoor ice hockey venue. Nevertheless, there is nothing against adding those as merge targets too, just in case one article is not in an indoor ice hockey venue yet.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
delete -- I should probably have sampled further than I did, but these appear to be multi-use venues used by the team in question. This fails OCVENUE, probably usually SMALLCAT, as there are less than 5 items.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete all — if an arena is not yet categorized as an indoor ice hockey venue, somebody else will correct it anyway. Better to be clear and concise that we don't categorize by venue. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:47, 10 January 2023 (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: Change to more current syntax that emphasizes that the category is for media where the element is a primary factor, not an incidental one.
DonIago (
talk) 14:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support with one change:
Category:Films about baccarat doesn't need disambiguation. I doubt there are many films about fine crystal. Besides that theoretical category would be capitalized Films about Baccarat anyway.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 08:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with Clarity's suggestion. I've updated the CfR.
DonIago (
talk) 13:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Baccarat is not capitalized for the game, only for the company.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 14:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, you were the one who used the capital B in your comment from 28 December...I believe I had it as a lowercase b to that point. Would you like me to change it back?
DonIago (
talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Question: if I understand correctly, the lottery game shows all included the draw of a national or state lottery (e.g. the British ones listed at
The National Lottery Draws#Saturday night game shows). Does this really make them about lotteries? Is there a better name, e.g. "Game shows including lottery draws"? –
FayenaticLondon 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm open to other options. When the original discussion that spawned the paradigm shift from "X films" to "Films about X" was ongoing, I'd suggested, as a bit of a compromise option, "Films featuring X", but the feeling was that we needed to be more explicitly clear that X needed to be a primary feature of the film. To me, "including" would have the same issue. I realize "about" is a bit fuzzy too, but for the purposes of consistency and emphasizing the intention, I'm not sure there's a better option.
DonIago (
talk) 16:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Several of the articles described the show as a "lottery game show", which implies that the current category names may be fitting. –
FayenaticLondon 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with dropping them from this batch in the interest of moving things along as well.
DonIago (
talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Support "films about" per precedent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:55, 6 January 2023 (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:Irish Canadian baseball players
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The Irish influence in Canadian sports has been well-documented (see, for example,
Gaelic Games Canada but not this particular intersection. Therefore, this intersection fails
WP:OCEGRS.
User:Namiba 14:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The category has a population of 15, which suggests to me that this is a substantial intersection; hence potentially notable.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not every substantial intersection is notable.--
User:Namiba 20:56, 9 January 2023 (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: most subcats of
Category:Language education by language are probably wrong. "English-language education" refers to education carried out in the english language, but not education of the english language. for example, teaching sci and math in english in malaysia is an aspect of "English-language education", but not education of the language.
some subcats correctly reflect this.
Category:English-language schools contains english medium schools, but not language schools that teach english.
RZuo (
talk) 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 09:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 08:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep unless a better alternative can be suggested. Like many categories this one is somewhat diffuse in its scope, but that is no harm. Trying to make categories too precise tends to result in lots of small categories which them have to be merged back. English-medium Education is the gateway to well-paid work in many parts of India.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle and
Peterkingiron: This was relisted (more than twice, contrary to
WP:RELIST instructions). I'd have preferred closing keep, and starting a new broader discussion. But now we are discussing:
Support that, per actual content of the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- There are several kinds of institution for which the present name may be a high level parent:
"English-medium education" where the instruction is given in English (or mainly so) where that is not the main language
"English language-schools" whose function is to teach English as a second language.
"schools teaching in English language", for example in French-speaking Quebec; or in Wales where some schools teach in Welsh
Universities teaching their courses in English (for example in Netherlands or Japan), because English is the main language of scientific communication.
To some extent these will inevitably overlap.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:07, 8 January 2023 (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:Anti-patterns
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: "
Anti-pattern" is too vague to be useful on its own. Most readers are probably looking for examples of a specific type of anti-pattern, but this category groups topics that are only vaguely related together. It's also currently a sub-category of multiple software development categories, despite not all the anti-patterns being related to software development, which only makes things more confusing.
ZerbuTalk 08:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I have checked a significant number of articles and they were all about software programming. Can you give a few examples of articles that would belong in
Category:Project management anti-patterns? I also noted that a number of articles were not about anti-patterns but instead more generally about poor programming habits, where would they go?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Instruction creep,
Law of the instrument,
Shturmovshchina are a few random examples. I suggested splitting because I felt it would be better than just removing articles, but if others feel differently, an alternative could be to rename the category and remove the unrelated articles. As for the articles about poor programming habits, if the consensus is to split, then perhaps they could be moved to a third category (maybe
Category:Code smells, since
code smell is a common term for poor programming habits).
ZerbuTalk 09:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I would remove these three altogether and others as well. The subjects of the articles should be called anti-patterns, and that is more than often not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment:: The basic concept of an "anti-pattern" is pretty general, and applies to domains outside of software engineering and project management. E.g.
Peter principle,
Tick-box culture,
Counterproductive work behavior describe anti-patterns in organizational management, though not necessarily using the specific term "anti-pattern".
73.223.72.200 (
talk) 02:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 08:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
IP user is right, in that concepts are not necessarily using the specific term "anti-pattern", i.e. anti-pattern is not a defining characteristic in many cases. Purge the category and only keep articles for which it actually is defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Purge per Marcocapelle —
WP:NOR I've spent a significant portion of my life in software research and engineering, many of these concepts are common, but the term anti-patterns is new to me. Limit the category to those the literature has specifically identified as anti-patterns. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:10, 10 January 2023 (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: These are overcategorizations based on venue per
WP:OCVENUE "There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there..."
User:Namiba 22:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Won't contest this one if it's congruent with (policy) and fair for everyone ..
Danielsltt (
talk) 22:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge targets? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I checked Tampa Bay and Toronto and all articles in there are also in an indoor ice hockey venue. Nevertheless, there is nothing against adding those as merge targets too, just in case one article is not in an indoor ice hockey venue yet.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
delete -- I should probably have sampled further than I did, but these appear to be multi-use venues used by the team in question. This fails OCVENUE, probably usually SMALLCAT, as there are less than 5 items.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete all — if an arena is not yet categorized as an indoor ice hockey venue, somebody else will correct it anyway. Better to be clear and concise that we don't categorize by venue. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:47, 10 January 2023 (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: Change to more current syntax that emphasizes that the category is for media where the element is a primary factor, not an incidental one.
DonIago (
talk) 14:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support with one change:
Category:Films about baccarat doesn't need disambiguation. I doubt there are many films about fine crystal. Besides that theoretical category would be capitalized Films about Baccarat anyway.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 08:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with Clarity's suggestion. I've updated the CfR.
DonIago (
talk) 13:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Baccarat is not capitalized for the game, only for the company.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 14:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, you were the one who used the capital B in your comment from 28 December...I believe I had it as a lowercase b to that point. Would you like me to change it back?
DonIago (
talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Question: if I understand correctly, the lottery game shows all included the draw of a national or state lottery (e.g. the British ones listed at
The National Lottery Draws#Saturday night game shows). Does this really make them about lotteries? Is there a better name, e.g. "Game shows including lottery draws"? –
FayenaticLondon 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm open to other options. When the original discussion that spawned the paradigm shift from "X films" to "Films about X" was ongoing, I'd suggested, as a bit of a compromise option, "Films featuring X", but the feeling was that we needed to be more explicitly clear that X needed to be a primary feature of the film. To me, "including" would have the same issue. I realize "about" is a bit fuzzy too, but for the purposes of consistency and emphasizing the intention, I'm not sure there's a better option.
DonIago (
talk) 16:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Several of the articles described the show as a "lottery game show", which implies that the current category names may be fitting. –
FayenaticLondon 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with dropping them from this batch in the interest of moving things along as well.
DonIago (
talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Support "films about" per precedent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:55, 6 January 2023 (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:Irish Canadian baseball players
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The Irish influence in Canadian sports has been well-documented (see, for example,
Gaelic Games Canada but not this particular intersection. Therefore, this intersection fails
WP:OCEGRS.
User:Namiba 14:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The category has a population of 15, which suggests to me that this is a substantial intersection; hence potentially notable.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not every substantial intersection is notable.--
User:Namiba 20:56, 9 January 2023 (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.