June 24
Category:Anti-paranormal books
- 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 to Category:Books about the paranormal.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I think I prefer deletion esp (ha! get it! Sorry, unintended pun) per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that there is the awfully named Category:Scientific skepticism media. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename top something like Category:Books debunking paranormal phenomena. I expect there are more. This is (or should be) more specific than Category:Scientific skepticism media. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this seems to be a definable and studiable set of books, the definition is clear and the name accurately reflects the content. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Books debunking paranormal phenomena. Current title fails WP:NPOV. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question - Couldn't we just upmerge to Category:Books about the paranormal? After all, a book that debunks paranormal phenoma is, by extension, about the paranormal. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge (new position) per Black Falcon. We categorize books based on subject, not based on position regarding the subject. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:54, 21 July 2012 (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.
Category:The Buggles albums
- 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: speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There have been hundreds of CfD nominations that have ratified the principle that all albums need an "(artist) albums" category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Useless; The Buggles only released 2 albums, so what's the point? The categories New Wave albums and Synthpop albums are more usable. EditorE ( talk) 21:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Of no use to readers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – part of Category:Albums by artist. Obviously the artist is a defining characteristic of an album. Oculi ( talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which permits small categories when they are part of an established series. In this case, they are part of Category:Albums by artist. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As part of the bigger scheme. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Giant Snowman 09:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. We've got GiantSnowman rolling his WP:Snow. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Limited to two articles and better located within the larger categories. Not a notable characteristic. SFB 17:13, 26 June 2012 (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.
Athletes by event categories
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: diffuse to "athletes" categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose diffusion to athlete by nationality level
- For all subcategories of Category:Athletes by nationality and event (main container cat)
- This category type represents a needless extra layer of categorisation into the structure. The subcategories could easily be accommodated at the "Fooian athletes" level. The event subcategories are limited to 15 by design and the only other subcategories present at the Fooian level are typically the "Olympic/Paralympic Fooian athletes" and the stub sorting category (not busy at all). The current structure offers no semantic benefit to the tree that would not be found if these event subcats were located at the athletes by nation level.
SFB 12:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The right name of the category should be
Category:Athletes by event, where, instead there is a redirect to the category that we want to delete. Others 16 Wikipedia in the world have this category. I think that category is necessary, because is necessary to have a "mother category" that contains athletes by events (and nationality), in different way to
Category:Track and field athletes by event. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 13:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the nominated category contains categories which have both nationality and event. If you wish to propose a merge of
Category:Track and field athletes by event into
Category:Competitors in athletics then please start a new nomination. For the record, only the
Italian Wikipedia has a similar category structure. It is precisely this structure that I think should be avoided – e.g.
German athletes category contains nothing but a subcategory for "German athletes by event" (what is the point?).
SFB 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The question for me is that it is appropriate to indicate two different categories
Category:Track and field athletes by event, which contains the athletes for the various specialties (then in
Category:Sprinters is correct that has inside
Category:Finnish sprinters) and another
Category:Athletes by nationality and event. For example, is correct that
Category:Finnish athletes by event is included in
Category:Athletes by nationality and event an
Category:Finnish athletes. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the hierarchy is correct, but the "by event" division serves no purpose. Consider this: if all sub-categories currently within the "by event and nationality" type categories (e.g. Finnish sprinters) are located directly within the nationality category instead (e.g. Finnish athletes) then the main container (Category:Athletes by nationality and event) is completely redundant to Category:Athletes by nationality (because a Finnish sprinter is an obvious sub-division of Finnish athletes anyway).
- For example, the "event" and "nationality" trees for Finnish sprinters are as follows:
- Category:Track and field athletes by event --> Category:Sprinters --> Category:Finnish sprinters
- Category:Athletes by nationality --> Category:Finnish athletes --> Category:Finnish athletes by event --> Category:Finnish sprinters
- In the second tree, the "by event" category is a completely superfluous tree (it's sole parent are "Finnish athletes" and the container "Category:Athletes by nationality and event"). If the "Fooian "EVENT"ers" categories are brought into the main nationality cat then we see that the hierarchy is more efficiently rationalised:
- Category:Athletes by nationality --> Category:Finnish athletes --> Category:Finnish sprinters
- Thus, one can search more easily just "by event" or "by nationality". SFB 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The question for me is that it is appropriate to indicate two different categories
Category:Track and field athletes by event, which contains the athletes for the various specialties (then in
Category:Sprinters is correct that has inside
Category:Finnish sprinters) and another
Category:Athletes by nationality and event. For example, is correct that
Category:Finnish athletes by event is included in
Category:Athletes by nationality and event an
Category:Finnish athletes. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the nominated category contains categories which have both nationality and event. If you wish to propose a merge of
Category:Track and field athletes by event into
Category:Competitors in athletics then please start a new nomination. For the record, only the
Italian Wikipedia has a similar category structure. It is precisely this structure that I think should be avoided – e.g.
German athletes category contains nothing but a subcategory for "German athletes by event" (what is the point?).
SFB 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The right name of the category should be
Category:Athletes by event, where, instead there is a redirect to the category that we want to delete. Others 16 Wikipedia in the world have this category. I think that category is necessary, because is necessary to have a "mother category" that contains athletes by events (and nationality), in different way to
Category:Track and field athletes by event. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 13:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support deletion of Category:Athletes by nationality and event and all of its subcategories. Referring to the example of Finnish athletes, the various event subcategories (e.g. Category:Finnish sprinters) should be visible under the subcategory section of Category:Finnish athletes. The existence of Category:Finnish athletes by event is an unnecessary sub-subcategory that requires an extra click, which also hinders the ability to view and categorize the uncategorized athletes. Location ( talk) 20:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion In addition to the reasons I have already explained, Category:Finnish sprinters, for example, is it correct that is inside Category:Finnish athletes by event. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 05:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge each to the parent Fooian athletes and eliminate this unnecessary level of categorisation. This will retain the category, but in a more suitable location. I checked the Belgian category, where there were several dozen articles that probably needed moving to a subcat accoridng to the event. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep– This category scheme connects Category:Athletes by nationality and Category:Track and field athletes by event, allowing one to move more freely between them. One would follow a longer path without this scheme (Track and field athletes by event → Sprinters → Finnish sprinters → Finnish athletes → Athletes by nationality) than with it (Track and field athletes by event → Athletes by nationality and event → Athletes by nationality). In addition, while the Fooian athletes categories generally are not cluttered, many do contain more than just Olympic/Paralympic and stub subcategories—see e.g., Category:American track and field athletes, Category:British athletes, Category:German athletes.
Regardless of whether this scheme is kept or deleted, would it be worth considering Category:Athletes by event and nationality for categories as such as Category:Sprinters by nationality. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)- It is not necessary to take the longer path that you indicated.
Category:Athletes by nationality and
Category:Track and field athletes by event can also be connected in two steps without
Category:Athletes by nationality and event: Track and field athletes by event → Competitors in athletics → Athletes by nationality.
Location (
talk) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're right; thanks for pointing out this alternative path. It appears then, that this category scheme does not shorten the path between the by event and by nationality but instead just adds another path. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 02:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also note that Category:Sprinters (and similar cats) already adequately serves the purpose of viewing by nationality. SFB 10:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're right; thanks for pointing out this alternative path. It appears then, that this category scheme does not shorten the path between the by event and by nationality but instead just adds another path. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 02:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to take the longer path that you indicated.
Category:Athletes by nationality and
Category:Track and field athletes by event can also be connected in two steps without
Category:Athletes by nationality and event: Track and field athletes by event → Competitors in athletics → Athletes by nationality.
Location (
talk) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (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.
Category:Northern League (association football) 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. In order to match Category:Southern Football League players. Giant Snowman 12:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 12:25, 24 June 2012 (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.
Category:Southern League (association football) 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Southern Football League players. Giant Snowman 12:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge according to the precedent of the Northern league (above). Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:11, 28 June 2012 (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.
Category:Cromwell, New Zealand
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Not part of a series. Prodontria lewisi is a bit of an odd one in the category and the others are in the Otago Region or Central Otago District category. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge, to Otago Region. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge as above NealeFamily ( talk) 22:35, 26 June 2012 (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.
Category:Texas state highway loops and spurs
- 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: split. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the lead articles, List of state highway loops in Texas and List of state highway spurs in Texas. Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. Dough 48 72 16:08, 24 June 2012 (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.
Category:Texas farm to market roads
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Texas farm to market roads to Category:Farm to Market Roads in Texas
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the Texas Department of Transportation's naming scheme, which is "Farm to Market Road".
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I propose a more accurate and inclusive title Category:Farm and Ranch to Market Roads in Texas followed by the deletion of the empty Category:Texas ranch to market roads. Fortguy ( talk) 04:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd rather separate the FMs from RMs and create Category:Ranch to Market Roads in Texas for the latter than invent the term "Farm and Ranch to Market Roads". Imzadi 1979 → 04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let me point out that many roads would need to be included in both categories due to their histories either through being renamed or having their numerical designations killed in one place only to be reborn in another. FMs and RMs, like loops and spurs, don't contemporaneously share the same numerical designations, although historical routes may conflict with current ones. Also, there is the issue of RM business routes. So far there is only one, but TxDOT has officially given it an FM business designation nonetheless. The general public is blind to this--the reassurance marker says "Business" instead of "Farm Road" or "Ranch Road"--but since business routes only get their subsection within the parent route's article, this is another source of duplicity. Fortguy ( talk) 05:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Fortguy's suggestion. -
Awardgive,
the editor with the msitaken name. 06:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- If TxDOT is not drawing a distinction between them, and we can't invent our own term ({{WP:NOR]]), then we default back to matching the lead article and using the Texas-specific capitalization TxDOT uses, which is the original proposal. In short, the prohibition against original research means we can't use Fortguy's suggestion as that would be a policy violation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 06:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The way things stand now:
- Category:Texas ranch to market roads is an empty category. It contains a template stating that the category should be empty and contains a redirect to the Farm Road category.
- Ranch Roads are currently categorized in Category:Texas farm to market roads
- Categorization has nothing to do with research, original or otherwise. It has to do with organizing an encyclopedia in a way that groups similar topics together for the convenience of the reader.
- Categories also have nothing to do with technicalities of the distinctions that transportation authorities make. If it did, then we would need a third category for Urban Roads since Farm and Ranch Road designations are mostly deprecated in urban areas and their signage is only a legacy of their former status. Furthermore, I know of at least two roads that have both Farm and Ranch Road designations. Neither has its own article yet, and the dual designations are most likely a bureaucratic SNAFU, but nonetheless technically official. Fortguy ( talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong, it is original research to apply a label to a roadway, and then categorize it based on that label, that isn't backed by a reliable source. Your proposed nomenclature ("Farm and Ranch to Market Roads") does not exist in the reliable sources so it should not be used. We can't just make up a name because Fortguy says so.
- In cases where a roadway is both a FM and a RM, just add both categories, or if titled under the FM name, add the RM category to the RM redirect. Either way, the "problem" is solved and not a big deal.
- If you want to make a Category:Urban Roads in Texas and use it, then do so. However, no articles are under that title so it's not a priority of this nomination, which is to rename a category to follow the "<road type> in <location>" style of other highway categories and to apply the standard TxDOT capitalization to the term. Please confine your comments to that as all other objections have nothing to do with renaming the category under discussion. The RM category has been tagged for a speedy rename, and quite frankly, whether or not it is used has nothing to do with how the FM category is named. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The way things stand now:
- If TxDOT is not drawing a distinction between them, and we can't invent our own term ({{WP:NOR]]), then we default back to matching the lead article and using the Texas-specific capitalization TxDOT uses, which is the original proposal. In short, the prohibition against original research means we can't use Fortguy's suggestion as that would be a policy violation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 06:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. I would keep the FM and RM separate. Dough 48 72 16:08, 24 June 2012 (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.
Category:Texas Recreational Roads
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only 01:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Texas Recreational Roads to Category:Recreational Roads in Texas
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the lead article,
List of Recreational Roads in Texas.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- We should also discuss merging Park and Recreational Roads into the same category as there is not an especially long list of either. I personally don't have a preference regarding these two, but I'd be interested in what others have to say. Frankly, I think the Texas Task Force has way too many categories that should either be combined due to redundancy, deleted, or dropped as being outside of or at best only tangentially touching upon the scope of the project and let other more appropriate projects maintain them.
Fortguy (
talk) 04:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but we can't invent names for categories. This is a category of roadway that TxDOT maintains and classifies separately from the others, so it's not appropriate to merge it with another one just to consolidate things. The remainder of your comments don't impact this discussion, which is about the category and not the project.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to support Imzadi here. Park roads are a completely different system from recreational roads. Park roads are more of a primary highway system, while recreational roads are more of a secondary highway system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but we can't invent names for categories. This is a category of roadway that TxDOT maintains and classifies separately from the others, so it's not appropriate to merge it with another one just to consolidate things. The remainder of your comments don't impact this discussion, which is about the category and not the project.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. Dough 48 72 16:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- We should also discuss merging Park and Recreational Roads into the same category as there is not an especially long list of either. I personally don't have a preference regarding these two, but I'd be interested in what others have to say. Frankly, I think the Texas Task Force has way too many categories that should either be combined due to redundancy, deleted, or dropped as being outside of or at best only tangentially touching upon the scope of the project and let other more appropriate projects maintain them.
Fortguy (
talk) 04:45, 24 June 2012 (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.
June 24
Category:Anti-paranormal books
- 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 to Category:Books about the paranormal.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I think I prefer deletion esp (ha! get it! Sorry, unintended pun) per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that there is the awfully named Category:Scientific skepticism media. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename top something like Category:Books debunking paranormal phenomena. I expect there are more. This is (or should be) more specific than Category:Scientific skepticism media. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this seems to be a definable and studiable set of books, the definition is clear and the name accurately reflects the content. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Books debunking paranormal phenomena. Current title fails WP:NPOV. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question - Couldn't we just upmerge to Category:Books about the paranormal? After all, a book that debunks paranormal phenoma is, by extension, about the paranormal. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge (new position) per Black Falcon. We categorize books based on subject, not based on position regarding the subject. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:54, 21 July 2012 (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.
Category:The Buggles albums
- 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: speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There have been hundreds of CfD nominations that have ratified the principle that all albums need an "(artist) albums" category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Useless; The Buggles only released 2 albums, so what's the point? The categories New Wave albums and Synthpop albums are more usable. EditorE ( talk) 21:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Of no use to readers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – part of Category:Albums by artist. Obviously the artist is a defining characteristic of an album. Oculi ( talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which permits small categories when they are part of an established series. In this case, they are part of Category:Albums by artist. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As part of the bigger scheme. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Giant Snowman 09:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. We've got GiantSnowman rolling his WP:Snow. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Limited to two articles and better located within the larger categories. Not a notable characteristic. SFB 17:13, 26 June 2012 (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.
Athletes by event categories
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: diffuse to "athletes" categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose diffusion to athlete by nationality level
- For all subcategories of Category:Athletes by nationality and event (main container cat)
- This category type represents a needless extra layer of categorisation into the structure. The subcategories could easily be accommodated at the "Fooian athletes" level. The event subcategories are limited to 15 by design and the only other subcategories present at the Fooian level are typically the "Olympic/Paralympic Fooian athletes" and the stub sorting category (not busy at all). The current structure offers no semantic benefit to the tree that would not be found if these event subcats were located at the athletes by nation level.
SFB 12:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The right name of the category should be
Category:Athletes by event, where, instead there is a redirect to the category that we want to delete. Others 16 Wikipedia in the world have this category. I think that category is necessary, because is necessary to have a "mother category" that contains athletes by events (and nationality), in different way to
Category:Track and field athletes by event. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 13:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the nominated category contains categories which have both nationality and event. If you wish to propose a merge of
Category:Track and field athletes by event into
Category:Competitors in athletics then please start a new nomination. For the record, only the
Italian Wikipedia has a similar category structure. It is precisely this structure that I think should be avoided – e.g.
German athletes category contains nothing but a subcategory for "German athletes by event" (what is the point?).
SFB 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The question for me is that it is appropriate to indicate two different categories
Category:Track and field athletes by event, which contains the athletes for the various specialties (then in
Category:Sprinters is correct that has inside
Category:Finnish sprinters) and another
Category:Athletes by nationality and event. For example, is correct that
Category:Finnish athletes by event is included in
Category:Athletes by nationality and event an
Category:Finnish athletes. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the hierarchy is correct, but the "by event" division serves no purpose. Consider this: if all sub-categories currently within the "by event and nationality" type categories (e.g. Finnish sprinters) are located directly within the nationality category instead (e.g. Finnish athletes) then the main container (Category:Athletes by nationality and event) is completely redundant to Category:Athletes by nationality (because a Finnish sprinter is an obvious sub-division of Finnish athletes anyway).
- For example, the "event" and "nationality" trees for Finnish sprinters are as follows:
- Category:Track and field athletes by event --> Category:Sprinters --> Category:Finnish sprinters
- Category:Athletes by nationality --> Category:Finnish athletes --> Category:Finnish athletes by event --> Category:Finnish sprinters
- In the second tree, the "by event" category is a completely superfluous tree (it's sole parent are "Finnish athletes" and the container "Category:Athletes by nationality and event"). If the "Fooian "EVENT"ers" categories are brought into the main nationality cat then we see that the hierarchy is more efficiently rationalised:
- Category:Athletes by nationality --> Category:Finnish athletes --> Category:Finnish sprinters
- Thus, one can search more easily just "by event" or "by nationality". SFB 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The question for me is that it is appropriate to indicate two different categories
Category:Track and field athletes by event, which contains the athletes for the various specialties (then in
Category:Sprinters is correct that has inside
Category:Finnish sprinters) and another
Category:Athletes by nationality and event. For example, is correct that
Category:Finnish athletes by event is included in
Category:Athletes by nationality and event an
Category:Finnish athletes. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the nominated category contains categories which have both nationality and event. If you wish to propose a merge of
Category:Track and field athletes by event into
Category:Competitors in athletics then please start a new nomination. For the record, only the
Italian Wikipedia has a similar category structure. It is precisely this structure that I think should be avoided – e.g.
German athletes category contains nothing but a subcategory for "German athletes by event" (what is the point?).
SFB 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The right name of the category should be
Category:Athletes by event, where, instead there is a redirect to the category that we want to delete. Others 16 Wikipedia in the world have this category. I think that category is necessary, because is necessary to have a "mother category" that contains athletes by events (and nationality), in different way to
Category:Track and field athletes by event. --
Kasper2006 (
talk) 13:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support deletion of Category:Athletes by nationality and event and all of its subcategories. Referring to the example of Finnish athletes, the various event subcategories (e.g. Category:Finnish sprinters) should be visible under the subcategory section of Category:Finnish athletes. The existence of Category:Finnish athletes by event is an unnecessary sub-subcategory that requires an extra click, which also hinders the ability to view and categorize the uncategorized athletes. Location ( talk) 20:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion In addition to the reasons I have already explained, Category:Finnish sprinters, for example, is it correct that is inside Category:Finnish athletes by event. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 05:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge each to the parent Fooian athletes and eliminate this unnecessary level of categorisation. This will retain the category, but in a more suitable location. I checked the Belgian category, where there were several dozen articles that probably needed moving to a subcat accoridng to the event. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep– This category scheme connects Category:Athletes by nationality and Category:Track and field athletes by event, allowing one to move more freely between them. One would follow a longer path without this scheme (Track and field athletes by event → Sprinters → Finnish sprinters → Finnish athletes → Athletes by nationality) than with it (Track and field athletes by event → Athletes by nationality and event → Athletes by nationality). In addition, while the Fooian athletes categories generally are not cluttered, many do contain more than just Olympic/Paralympic and stub subcategories—see e.g., Category:American track and field athletes, Category:British athletes, Category:German athletes.
Regardless of whether this scheme is kept or deleted, would it be worth considering Category:Athletes by event and nationality for categories as such as Category:Sprinters by nationality. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)- It is not necessary to take the longer path that you indicated.
Category:Athletes by nationality and
Category:Track and field athletes by event can also be connected in two steps without
Category:Athletes by nationality and event: Track and field athletes by event → Competitors in athletics → Athletes by nationality.
Location (
talk) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're right; thanks for pointing out this alternative path. It appears then, that this category scheme does not shorten the path between the by event and by nationality but instead just adds another path. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 02:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also note that Category:Sprinters (and similar cats) already adequately serves the purpose of viewing by nationality. SFB 10:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're right; thanks for pointing out this alternative path. It appears then, that this category scheme does not shorten the path between the by event and by nationality but instead just adds another path. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 02:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to take the longer path that you indicated.
Category:Athletes by nationality and
Category:Track and field athletes by event can also be connected in two steps without
Category:Athletes by nationality and event: Track and field athletes by event → Competitors in athletics → Athletes by nationality.
Location (
talk) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (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.
Category:Northern League (association football) 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. In order to match Category:Southern Football League players. Giant Snowman 12:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 12:25, 24 June 2012 (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.
Category:Southern League (association football) 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Southern Football League players. Giant Snowman 12:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge according to the precedent of the Northern league (above). Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:11, 28 June 2012 (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.
Category:Cromwell, New Zealand
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Not part of a series. Prodontria lewisi is a bit of an odd one in the category and the others are in the Otago Region or Central Otago District category. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge, to Otago Region. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge as above NealeFamily ( talk) 22:35, 26 June 2012 (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.
Category:Texas state highway loops and spurs
- 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: split. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the lead articles, List of state highway loops in Texas and List of state highway spurs in Texas. Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. Dough 48 72 16:08, 24 June 2012 (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.
Category:Texas farm to market roads
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Texas farm to market roads to Category:Farm to Market Roads in Texas
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the Texas Department of Transportation's naming scheme, which is "Farm to Market Road".
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I propose a more accurate and inclusive title Category:Farm and Ranch to Market Roads in Texas followed by the deletion of the empty Category:Texas ranch to market roads. Fortguy ( talk) 04:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd rather separate the FMs from RMs and create Category:Ranch to Market Roads in Texas for the latter than invent the term "Farm and Ranch to Market Roads". Imzadi 1979 → 04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let me point out that many roads would need to be included in both categories due to their histories either through being renamed or having their numerical designations killed in one place only to be reborn in another. FMs and RMs, like loops and spurs, don't contemporaneously share the same numerical designations, although historical routes may conflict with current ones. Also, there is the issue of RM business routes. So far there is only one, but TxDOT has officially given it an FM business designation nonetheless. The general public is blind to this--the reassurance marker says "Business" instead of "Farm Road" or "Ranch Road"--but since business routes only get their subsection within the parent route's article, this is another source of duplicity. Fortguy ( talk) 05:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Fortguy's suggestion. -
Awardgive,
the editor with the msitaken name. 06:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- If TxDOT is not drawing a distinction between them, and we can't invent our own term ({{WP:NOR]]), then we default back to matching the lead article and using the Texas-specific capitalization TxDOT uses, which is the original proposal. In short, the prohibition against original research means we can't use Fortguy's suggestion as that would be a policy violation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 06:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The way things stand now:
- Category:Texas ranch to market roads is an empty category. It contains a template stating that the category should be empty and contains a redirect to the Farm Road category.
- Ranch Roads are currently categorized in Category:Texas farm to market roads
- Categorization has nothing to do with research, original or otherwise. It has to do with organizing an encyclopedia in a way that groups similar topics together for the convenience of the reader.
- Categories also have nothing to do with technicalities of the distinctions that transportation authorities make. If it did, then we would need a third category for Urban Roads since Farm and Ranch Road designations are mostly deprecated in urban areas and their signage is only a legacy of their former status. Furthermore, I know of at least two roads that have both Farm and Ranch Road designations. Neither has its own article yet, and the dual designations are most likely a bureaucratic SNAFU, but nonetheless technically official. Fortguy ( talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong, it is original research to apply a label to a roadway, and then categorize it based on that label, that isn't backed by a reliable source. Your proposed nomenclature ("Farm and Ranch to Market Roads") does not exist in the reliable sources so it should not be used. We can't just make up a name because Fortguy says so.
- In cases where a roadway is both a FM and a RM, just add both categories, or if titled under the FM name, add the RM category to the RM redirect. Either way, the "problem" is solved and not a big deal.
- If you want to make a Category:Urban Roads in Texas and use it, then do so. However, no articles are under that title so it's not a priority of this nomination, which is to rename a category to follow the "<road type> in <location>" style of other highway categories and to apply the standard TxDOT capitalization to the term. Please confine your comments to that as all other objections have nothing to do with renaming the category under discussion. The RM category has been tagged for a speedy rename, and quite frankly, whether or not it is used has nothing to do with how the FM category is named. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The way things stand now:
- If TxDOT is not drawing a distinction between them, and we can't invent our own term ({{WP:NOR]]), then we default back to matching the lead article and using the Texas-specific capitalization TxDOT uses, which is the original proposal. In short, the prohibition against original research means we can't use Fortguy's suggestion as that would be a policy violation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 06:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. I would keep the FM and RM separate. Dough 48 72 16:08, 24 June 2012 (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.
Category:Texas Recreational Roads
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only 01:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Texas Recreational Roads to Category:Recreational Roads in Texas
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the lead article,
List of Recreational Roads in Texas.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- We should also discuss merging Park and Recreational Roads into the same category as there is not an especially long list of either. I personally don't have a preference regarding these two, but I'd be interested in what others have to say. Frankly, I think the Texas Task Force has way too many categories that should either be combined due to redundancy, deleted, or dropped as being outside of or at best only tangentially touching upon the scope of the project and let other more appropriate projects maintain them.
Fortguy (
talk) 04:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but we can't invent names for categories. This is a category of roadway that TxDOT maintains and classifies separately from the others, so it's not appropriate to merge it with another one just to consolidate things. The remainder of your comments don't impact this discussion, which is about the category and not the project.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to support Imzadi here. Park roads are a completely different system from recreational roads. Park roads are more of a primary highway system, while recreational roads are more of a secondary highway system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but we can't invent names for categories. This is a category of roadway that TxDOT maintains and classifies separately from the others, so it's not appropriate to merge it with another one just to consolidate things. The remainder of your comments don't impact this discussion, which is about the category and not the project.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. Dough 48 72 16:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- We should also discuss merging Park and Recreational Roads into the same category as there is not an especially long list of either. I personally don't have a preference regarding these two, but I'd be interested in what others have to say. Frankly, I think the Texas Task Force has way too many categories that should either be combined due to redundancy, deleted, or dropped as being outside of or at best only tangentially touching upon the scope of the project and let other more appropriate projects maintain them.
Fortguy (
talk) 04:45, 24 June 2012 (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.