June 25
Category:Irisbus
- 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:Iveco vehicles and Category:Iveco as needed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 ( talk) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as small cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as part of the tree Category:Bus manufacturers. If deleted its subcat needs to be ensured it's properly categorised. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and place Category:Irisbus vehicles in Category:Iveco; the other contents already are otherwise categorized. I think that this category does not qualify for the overall-scheme exception of WP:SMALLCAT, since Category:Bus manufacturers contains over 250 articles but just 20 eponymous categories. In addition, Irisbus is a fully owned subsidiary of Iveco, so it seems natural to upmerge (in effect) to the parent category. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:07, 19 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:Abstraction
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Vague. Over-categorization. Pointless Brad7777 ( talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not over overcategorization. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I am open-minded to this deletion proposal. However, perhaps it can be saved if we have a clear definition. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Please keep. Abstraction is a useful process; where else, for example, might the articles in this category be unified with
Category:Category theory, which deals with abstractions? The same question for
lifting (mathematics) --
Ancheta Wis
(talk
| contribs) 00:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If that is what is wanted, then renaming this to
Category:Abstraction (mathematics) would be more defining and would be backed up by the article
Abstraction (mathematics). I'm not sure whether these articles need to be grouped with articles such as the biologically orientated ones which deal with abstraction as a thought process, or the articles about abstract art, as I think the article
abstraction alone could cover this.
Brad7777 (
talk) 10:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming too, as the main article of the category is Abstraction. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If that is what is wanted, then renaming this to
Category:Abstraction (mathematics) would be more defining and would be backed up by the article
Abstraction (mathematics). I'm not sure whether these articles need to be grouped with articles such as the biologically orientated ones which deal with abstraction as a thought process, or the articles about abstract art, as I think the article
abstraction alone could cover this.
Brad7777 (
talk) 10:30, 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:Interdisciplinary fields
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete for now. The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not notable. Over-categorization. Brad7777 ( talk) 19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I see no use for this. I would say basically every field would fit this tag except the most elementary of fields. Brad7777 ( talk) 22:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Not over overcategorization.Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)- Comment. The category name is problematic given that the main article is Interdisciplinarity which states Interdisciplinarity involves the combining of two or more academic disciplines into one activity, so are these activities separately written about and do we have articles on those? Right now it appears that what is included are the disciplines that are combined. Can't all disciplines be combined rendering the current contents invalid since the criteria is no longer defining as everything should be a member? Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If NN, it is surprising that it should be so well populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the discussion that follows. Allow recreation at a later date if only those fields which are combined have an article and are named uniquely. Recreation would also require a category name and introduction that makes the intent of the category clear. In the meantime, a list should/could be created to address these combinations which could negate the need for a category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete how do either anthropology or history belong in this category? This is throwing together a lot of fields of study in many cases for reasons that are not clear. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, but allow recreation per Vegaswikian. This could be a very valid category if appropriately populated. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:31, 3 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:Dangerous Road for Pedestrians
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete hopelessly subjective and unlikely to be defining since roads are not designed to be safe for pedestrians. Pichpich ( talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Would all the interstates count? Delete. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, all roads are dangerous for pedestrians with the degree of danger varying by location. If kept, rename to Category:Dangerous roads for pedestrians. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Vegaswikian. Steam5 ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete there is no real clear criteria for inclusion. For one thing, is it meant to be for roads where pedestrians often exist, or should we include every road that a pedestrian trying to cross is in major risk? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is a hopelessly POV category. There can be no clear criterion as to which roads should (and should not) appear. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for now - with respect, before passing such judgements it would be wise to refer back to the WP projects which might have an informed opinion. E.g. the Euro NCAP equivalents for roads might enable non-subjectivity. However, in this instance, when you look at the two roads in this category you will see there is no reference to pedestrian safety within the articles. Ephebi ( talk) 18:30, 30 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:Luther Rice Seminary alumni
- 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 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Luther Rice Seminary alumni to Category:Luther Rice University alumni
- Nominator's rationale: Merge we have a single main article under the title Luther Rice University (to which Luther Rice Seminary redirects) so I propose keeping all alumni in a single category. Pichpich ( talk) 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Brad7777 ( talk) 17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge as best I can tell this is all one unified organization. The seminary is not a distinct unit which we normally require to sub-categorize alumni seperately. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge -- Whatever the relationship of the two, I do not think we need both. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:25, 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:Albums produced by Hangmen 3
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Per precedent, we usually require multiple solo production credits to create such a category. In this case, Hangmen 3 (aka Benzino) only has partial producer credits on his own albums. Pichpich ( talk) 17:13, 25 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:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes
- 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:Chemical nomenclature.
The Bushranger
One ping only 01:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes to Category:Affixes used in Chemistry
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar Brad7777 ( talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think Category:Chemistry affixes would be better. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this terminology ("affix") is unknown [1] , while "prefix" and "suffix" are used [2] -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with
70.49.127.65. Prefixes and suffixes are more clear for users, but these terms remain in the sub-cats anyhow. Sub-cat
Chemistry infixes had to be inserted.--
Wickey-nl (
talk) 12:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment what about Category:Prefixes and suffixes used in Chemistry? I do not quite understand what you have said about chemistry infixes; these also exist but i am not sure if there are articles on them. The term affix includes infixes (aswell as prefixes and suffixes;) but i can see why we wouldn't use the term "affix" if it isn't a familiar word in the relevant subject community. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have just noticed that this category contains 1 article and 2 subcats. ( Category:Chemistry prefixes and Category:Chemistry suffixes.) Because of this I have changed my mind and now think that Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes should be deleted. And perhaps its sub-cats could do with a grammatical renaming instead. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, but the solution is Upmerge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Peterkingiron Brad7777 ( talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Chemical nomenclature. I think this is what Peterkingiron meant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:26, 9 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:Teachable units for language instruction
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only contains 4 articles. Seems to have been unused since 2009, and I'm not very clear as to if it will grow as there is no eponymous article. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:30, 25 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:Bird terminology
- 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 17:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Bird terminology to Category:Ornithological terminology
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Is the new name supposed to imply terms from ornithology (in which case, it should be a subcategory called Category:Ornithology terminology), or is it supposed to retain the broad scope of the current name? 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Retain the broad scope. My problem is only one of grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 09:01, 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:Ecology terminology
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ecology terminology to Category:Ecological terminology
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar Brad7777 ( talk) 14:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The category is for terminology used in ecology, not for terminology which is ecological.- choster ( talk) 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Choster. Terminology used in ecology, the field, is a much more limited scope, than terminology used in relation to anything ecological. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Surely, anything related to something ecological, like for example; something related to an ecosystem - would be studied in ecology, relative to the ecosystem. Would this not then give that term related to the ecosystem an ecological flavour? Because I thought "ecological term" referred to a term from an ecological perspective.
Brad7777 (
talk) 08:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) And any term from an ecological perspective is worthy to be used in ecology.
Brad7777 (
talk) 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply no, ecology is a science, with specific terminology. However, ecological activism is not a science, and has its own terminology. There are other subjects related to ecology which can be covered by "ecological" terminology, but which is not covered by "ecology" terminology. I'd rather think we should not expand the scope of this category to do that. A supercategory under your proposed name can be used for such a thing, without needing to expand the current scope.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 10:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply Ecology's own terminology is of an ecological nature. I get what you mean about other disciplines having the term "ecological" in them, but take Ecological economics; the terminology it uses is a mixture of economical terms and ecological terms. More specifically, the ecological terms are given an additional economic definition, also making them economical terms. Making Category:Ecological terminology (or "ecological terms"?) a parent category of Category:Ecology terminology is just creating depth for no reason. Brad7777 ( talk) 19:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply no, ecology is a science, with specific terminology. However, ecological activism is not a science, and has its own terminology. There are other subjects related to ecology which can be covered by "ecological" terminology, but which is not covered by "ecology" terminology. I'd rather think we should not expand the scope of this category to do that. A supercategory under your proposed name can be used for such a thing, without needing to expand the current scope.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 10:13, 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:Biology prefixes and suffixes
- 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:
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 19. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 05:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Biology prefixes and suffixes to Category:Affixes used in Biology
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement of grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment After having a look at the similar Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes, I would suggest the same for this too. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think Category:Biology affixes and Category:Chemistry affixes would be better. (BTW the latter category isn't tagged.) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this terminology ("affix") appears to be unused
[3] while "suffix" and "prefix" are used
[4] --
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I see, then I guess Category:Prefixes and suffixes used in Biology could be used instead. Brad7777 ( talk) 10:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Biology terminology. I do not see the point in a specialized category with only five entries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question Would it be better placed in Category:Biological nomenclature ? Brad7777 ( talk) 12:15, 14 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:Biology terminology
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Biology terminology to Category:Biological terminology
- Nominator's rationale: An improvement to the grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose the first is terminology used in biology, the field, the second is terminology used in relation with anything biological. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Which I believe are exactly the same thing. Could you give an example so I can understand why you say they are different?
Brad7777 (
talk) 08:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply a category for the field of biology, should not include terms for the marketing of probiotics, terms from alternative medicine, or industrial products from biological sources, such a biofuels and bioplastics. Or marketing terms for shampoos, which biorevive your hair. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 10:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Google Hits "Biology terminology", Biology terms, Biological terminology and "Biological terms". "Biological terms" has significantly more hits. I propose a rename to Category:Biological terms. Brad7777 ( talk) 11:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this is not a question of "common name" this is a question of the right term to describe what we have. What makes this a category is that it is terms used in the field known as biology. It is not terms that are in some way "biological". The current name describes what the terms are, terms used in the science, biology. I am not sure we can justify the goal term as a category name. The current name works at least, and I say, if it is not broke, don't fix it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The current name does not have an eponymous article called Biology terminology so there is no reason to name it as if it is a topic category. It is a set category, containing as you have said, terms used in the science, biology. These terms are biological terms, (they are defined by the logic of Biology.) I agree the terms are not "alive" but they are definitely biological terms. As it is a set category, by the naming conventions of WP:CAT the category name should be plural for example Category:Biological terms. It is also the more common phrase according to google. Brad7777 ( talk) 17:00, 9 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:Compensation
- 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 17:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Compensation to Category:Compensation methods
- Nominator's rationale: Compensation has too many other meanings. This category is about Compensation methods so it should be named as such. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 07:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename although I would prefer Category:Compensation models; but a redirect from that would be ok. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 08:30, 25 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:108 holy temples of Vishnu
- 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 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:108 holy temples of Vishnu to Category:Divya Desams
- Nominator's rationale: The 108 holy temples of Vishnu are known, collectively, as the Divya Desams. (Category creator not notified: inactive for 2 years) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: If there is consensus to rename the category, I request that the task be left to me, so that I might be able to correct the sort keys for the articles while renaming the category (to avoid double-editing each article), as well as to determine why there are 111 articles in the category when there should be only 109: the head article and the 108 temples. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom.
Ocean of milk is one of the 2 extras(Ocean of milk is an extra-terrestrial one. The situation is complicated by many of the 108 listed links being redirects, at least 3 being to dab pages.) Oculi ( talk) 08:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) - Comment Heheheh, good luck with that Black Falcon. Your mission if you choose to accept it is... Decide on a renaming nomenclature that is consistant, rename all the articles and see what you can do with the DABs. Been here, done that, not fun. :) Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This is the English WP, not the Hindi or Sanskrit one, so that category names should be in English. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename the article is Divya Desams so we should follow that lead in the category name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support to match the parent article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to match the parent article. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:31, 30 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.
Transportation in Canada
- 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The established naming convention on the top level of the category tree is to use "Transport" instead of "Transportation". See: Category:Transport in Canada, Category:Transport in Canada by province or territory and Category:Transport in Canada by city. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. The head article and category for this category tree are Transport in Canada and Category:Transport in Canada, respectively. There has been at least one discussion aimed at changing the head article to Transportation in Canada and the proposal failed to gain consensus. Except the nominated location-based categories, all other members of the tree already use 'transport' – e.g., Category:Rail transport in Canada, Category:Transport disasters in Canada. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, and reverse speedy rename of head category. This was discussed last year, and closed as don't rename, it never should have gone through speedy rename. My hope, was that consensus was to judge each individually, as the local agency in each jurisdiction uses different terminology. All of these categories, and their parent categories, are way too many to be discussed in a mass nomination. 117Avenue ( talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- In the link you have given, the closure is: "rename all as nominated". Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all. Canada is an on-the-fence country on this score. Transportation and transport seem to be used about equally. In that case, we should default to the majority of the world's usage, which is transport.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all to match Category:Transport in Canada and Transport in Canada. Oculi ( talk) 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all as Transport, not transportation, is the standard established by the top of the tree and per standard usage in a 'neutral' country, as per Mike and Oculi. -
The Bushranger posting as
Aerobird from a public computer
Talk 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would say the standard established by the tree is the one used by most of the tree, in this case, it is "transportation". And I don't see what a "neutral" country has to do with Canada, since this deals solely with Canadian categories. The US is a "neutral" (ie. non-Canadian) country, it uses "transportation". (I have no opinion on which side is better, but I think the opinions provided should be based on Canadian English when determining which way these categories are named)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's "neutral" as in "uses 'transport' and 'transportation' roughly equally in Canadian English" based on the comments above. And just because the majority of the tree uses a certain standard doesn't mean it's the right standard. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would say the standard established by the tree is the one used by most of the tree, in this case, it is "transportation". And I don't see what a "neutral" country has to do with Canada, since this deals solely with Canadian categories. The US is a "neutral" (ie. non-Canadian) country, it uses "transportation". (I have no opinion on which side is better, but I think the opinions provided should be based on Canadian English when determining which way these categories are named)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 21:23, 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:City airports
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inclusion criteria is too subjective. What exactly determines 'close proximity'? Why restrict the target to only business travelers? Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete vague marketting term. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Steam5 ( talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the fact that Detroit City Airport does not qualify because despite being in the city it is not in or in close proximity to Downtown Detroit (well, not by my definitions of close proximity, others may have different views) tells me this category is far too narrowly defined. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:47, 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.
June 25
Category:Irisbus
- 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:Iveco vehicles and Category:Iveco as needed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 ( talk) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as small cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as part of the tree Category:Bus manufacturers. If deleted its subcat needs to be ensured it's properly categorised. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and place Category:Irisbus vehicles in Category:Iveco; the other contents already are otherwise categorized. I think that this category does not qualify for the overall-scheme exception of WP:SMALLCAT, since Category:Bus manufacturers contains over 250 articles but just 20 eponymous categories. In addition, Irisbus is a fully owned subsidiary of Iveco, so it seems natural to upmerge (in effect) to the parent category. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:07, 19 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:Abstraction
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Vague. Over-categorization. Pointless Brad7777 ( talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not over overcategorization. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I am open-minded to this deletion proposal. However, perhaps it can be saved if we have a clear definition. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Please keep. Abstraction is a useful process; where else, for example, might the articles in this category be unified with
Category:Category theory, which deals with abstractions? The same question for
lifting (mathematics) --
Ancheta Wis
(talk
| contribs) 00:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If that is what is wanted, then renaming this to
Category:Abstraction (mathematics) would be more defining and would be backed up by the article
Abstraction (mathematics). I'm not sure whether these articles need to be grouped with articles such as the biologically orientated ones which deal with abstraction as a thought process, or the articles about abstract art, as I think the article
abstraction alone could cover this.
Brad7777 (
talk) 10:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming too, as the main article of the category is Abstraction. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If that is what is wanted, then renaming this to
Category:Abstraction (mathematics) would be more defining and would be backed up by the article
Abstraction (mathematics). I'm not sure whether these articles need to be grouped with articles such as the biologically orientated ones which deal with abstraction as a thought process, or the articles about abstract art, as I think the article
abstraction alone could cover this.
Brad7777 (
talk) 10:30, 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:Interdisciplinary fields
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete for now. The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not notable. Over-categorization. Brad7777 ( talk) 19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I see no use for this. I would say basically every field would fit this tag except the most elementary of fields. Brad7777 ( talk) 22:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Not over overcategorization.Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)- Comment. The category name is problematic given that the main article is Interdisciplinarity which states Interdisciplinarity involves the combining of two or more academic disciplines into one activity, so are these activities separately written about and do we have articles on those? Right now it appears that what is included are the disciplines that are combined. Can't all disciplines be combined rendering the current contents invalid since the criteria is no longer defining as everything should be a member? Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If NN, it is surprising that it should be so well populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the discussion that follows. Allow recreation at a later date if only those fields which are combined have an article and are named uniquely. Recreation would also require a category name and introduction that makes the intent of the category clear. In the meantime, a list should/could be created to address these combinations which could negate the need for a category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete how do either anthropology or history belong in this category? This is throwing together a lot of fields of study in many cases for reasons that are not clear. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, but allow recreation per Vegaswikian. This could be a very valid category if appropriately populated. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:31, 3 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:Dangerous Road for Pedestrians
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete hopelessly subjective and unlikely to be defining since roads are not designed to be safe for pedestrians. Pichpich ( talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Would all the interstates count? Delete. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, all roads are dangerous for pedestrians with the degree of danger varying by location. If kept, rename to Category:Dangerous roads for pedestrians. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Vegaswikian. Steam5 ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete there is no real clear criteria for inclusion. For one thing, is it meant to be for roads where pedestrians often exist, or should we include every road that a pedestrian trying to cross is in major risk? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is a hopelessly POV category. There can be no clear criterion as to which roads should (and should not) appear. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for now - with respect, before passing such judgements it would be wise to refer back to the WP projects which might have an informed opinion. E.g. the Euro NCAP equivalents for roads might enable non-subjectivity. However, in this instance, when you look at the two roads in this category you will see there is no reference to pedestrian safety within the articles. Ephebi ( talk) 18:30, 30 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:Luther Rice Seminary alumni
- 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 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Luther Rice Seminary alumni to Category:Luther Rice University alumni
- Nominator's rationale: Merge we have a single main article under the title Luther Rice University (to which Luther Rice Seminary redirects) so I propose keeping all alumni in a single category. Pichpich ( talk) 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Brad7777 ( talk) 17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge as best I can tell this is all one unified organization. The seminary is not a distinct unit which we normally require to sub-categorize alumni seperately. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge -- Whatever the relationship of the two, I do not think we need both. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:25, 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:Albums produced by Hangmen 3
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Per precedent, we usually require multiple solo production credits to create such a category. In this case, Hangmen 3 (aka Benzino) only has partial producer credits on his own albums. Pichpich ( talk) 17:13, 25 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:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes
- 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:Chemical nomenclature.
The Bushranger
One ping only 01:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes to Category:Affixes used in Chemistry
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar Brad7777 ( talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think Category:Chemistry affixes would be better. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this terminology ("affix") is unknown [1] , while "prefix" and "suffix" are used [2] -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with
70.49.127.65. Prefixes and suffixes are more clear for users, but these terms remain in the sub-cats anyhow. Sub-cat
Chemistry infixes had to be inserted.--
Wickey-nl (
talk) 12:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment what about Category:Prefixes and suffixes used in Chemistry? I do not quite understand what you have said about chemistry infixes; these also exist but i am not sure if there are articles on them. The term affix includes infixes (aswell as prefixes and suffixes;) but i can see why we wouldn't use the term "affix" if it isn't a familiar word in the relevant subject community. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have just noticed that this category contains 1 article and 2 subcats. ( Category:Chemistry prefixes and Category:Chemistry suffixes.) Because of this I have changed my mind and now think that Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes should be deleted. And perhaps its sub-cats could do with a grammatical renaming instead. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, but the solution is Upmerge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Peterkingiron Brad7777 ( talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Chemical nomenclature. I think this is what Peterkingiron meant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:26, 9 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:Teachable units for language instruction
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only contains 4 articles. Seems to have been unused since 2009, and I'm not very clear as to if it will grow as there is no eponymous article. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:30, 25 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:Bird terminology
- 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 17:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Bird terminology to Category:Ornithological terminology
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Is the new name supposed to imply terms from ornithology (in which case, it should be a subcategory called Category:Ornithology terminology), or is it supposed to retain the broad scope of the current name? 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Retain the broad scope. My problem is only one of grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 09:01, 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:Ecology terminology
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ecology terminology to Category:Ecological terminology
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar Brad7777 ( talk) 14:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The category is for terminology used in ecology, not for terminology which is ecological.- choster ( talk) 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Choster. Terminology used in ecology, the field, is a much more limited scope, than terminology used in relation to anything ecological. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Surely, anything related to something ecological, like for example; something related to an ecosystem - would be studied in ecology, relative to the ecosystem. Would this not then give that term related to the ecosystem an ecological flavour? Because I thought "ecological term" referred to a term from an ecological perspective.
Brad7777 (
talk) 08:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) And any term from an ecological perspective is worthy to be used in ecology.
Brad7777 (
talk) 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply no, ecology is a science, with specific terminology. However, ecological activism is not a science, and has its own terminology. There are other subjects related to ecology which can be covered by "ecological" terminology, but which is not covered by "ecology" terminology. I'd rather think we should not expand the scope of this category to do that. A supercategory under your proposed name can be used for such a thing, without needing to expand the current scope.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 10:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply Ecology's own terminology is of an ecological nature. I get what you mean about other disciplines having the term "ecological" in them, but take Ecological economics; the terminology it uses is a mixture of economical terms and ecological terms. More specifically, the ecological terms are given an additional economic definition, also making them economical terms. Making Category:Ecological terminology (or "ecological terms"?) a parent category of Category:Ecology terminology is just creating depth for no reason. Brad7777 ( talk) 19:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply no, ecology is a science, with specific terminology. However, ecological activism is not a science, and has its own terminology. There are other subjects related to ecology which can be covered by "ecological" terminology, but which is not covered by "ecology" terminology. I'd rather think we should not expand the scope of this category to do that. A supercategory under your proposed name can be used for such a thing, without needing to expand the current scope.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 10:13, 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:Biology prefixes and suffixes
- 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: Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 19. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 05:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Biology prefixes and suffixes to Category:Affixes used in Biology
- Nominator's rationale: Improvement of grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment After having a look at the similar Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes, I would suggest the same for this too. Brad7777 ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think Category:Biology affixes and Category:Chemistry affixes would be better. (BTW the latter category isn't tagged.) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this terminology ("affix") appears to be unused
[3] while "suffix" and "prefix" are used
[4] --
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I see, then I guess Category:Prefixes and suffixes used in Biology could be used instead. Brad7777 ( talk) 10:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Biology terminology. I do not see the point in a specialized category with only five entries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question Would it be better placed in Category:Biological nomenclature ? Brad7777 ( talk) 12:15, 14 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:Biology terminology
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Biology terminology to Category:Biological terminology
- Nominator's rationale: An improvement to the grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose the first is terminology used in biology, the field, the second is terminology used in relation with anything biological. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Which I believe are exactly the same thing. Could you give an example so I can understand why you say they are different?
Brad7777 (
talk) 08:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply a category for the field of biology, should not include terms for the marketing of probiotics, terms from alternative medicine, or industrial products from biological sources, such a biofuels and bioplastics. Or marketing terms for shampoos, which biorevive your hair. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 10:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Google Hits "Biology terminology", Biology terms, Biological terminology and "Biological terms". "Biological terms" has significantly more hits. I propose a rename to Category:Biological terms. Brad7777 ( talk) 11:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this is not a question of "common name" this is a question of the right term to describe what we have. What makes this a category is that it is terms used in the field known as biology. It is not terms that are in some way "biological". The current name describes what the terms are, terms used in the science, biology. I am not sure we can justify the goal term as a category name. The current name works at least, and I say, if it is not broke, don't fix it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The current name does not have an eponymous article called Biology terminology so there is no reason to name it as if it is a topic category. It is a set category, containing as you have said, terms used in the science, biology. These terms are biological terms, (they are defined by the logic of Biology.) I agree the terms are not "alive" but they are definitely biological terms. As it is a set category, by the naming conventions of WP:CAT the category name should be plural for example Category:Biological terms. It is also the more common phrase according to google. Brad7777 ( talk) 17:00, 9 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:Compensation
- 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 17:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Compensation to Category:Compensation methods
- Nominator's rationale: Compensation has too many other meanings. This category is about Compensation methods so it should be named as such. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 07:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename although I would prefer Category:Compensation models; but a redirect from that would be ok. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 08:30, 25 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:108 holy temples of Vishnu
- 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 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:108 holy temples of Vishnu to Category:Divya Desams
- Nominator's rationale: The 108 holy temples of Vishnu are known, collectively, as the Divya Desams. (Category creator not notified: inactive for 2 years) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: If there is consensus to rename the category, I request that the task be left to me, so that I might be able to correct the sort keys for the articles while renaming the category (to avoid double-editing each article), as well as to determine why there are 111 articles in the category when there should be only 109: the head article and the 108 temples. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom.
Ocean of milk is one of the 2 extras(Ocean of milk is an extra-terrestrial one. The situation is complicated by many of the 108 listed links being redirects, at least 3 being to dab pages.) Oculi ( talk) 08:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) - Comment Heheheh, good luck with that Black Falcon. Your mission if you choose to accept it is... Decide on a renaming nomenclature that is consistant, rename all the articles and see what you can do with the DABs. Been here, done that, not fun. :) Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This is the English WP, not the Hindi or Sanskrit one, so that category names should be in English. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename the article is Divya Desams so we should follow that lead in the category name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support to match the parent article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to match the parent article. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:31, 30 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.
Transportation in Canada
- 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The established naming convention on the top level of the category tree is to use "Transport" instead of "Transportation". See: Category:Transport in Canada, Category:Transport in Canada by province or territory and Category:Transport in Canada by city. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. The head article and category for this category tree are Transport in Canada and Category:Transport in Canada, respectively. There has been at least one discussion aimed at changing the head article to Transportation in Canada and the proposal failed to gain consensus. Except the nominated location-based categories, all other members of the tree already use 'transport' – e.g., Category:Rail transport in Canada, Category:Transport disasters in Canada. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 07:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, and reverse speedy rename of head category. This was discussed last year, and closed as don't rename, it never should have gone through speedy rename. My hope, was that consensus was to judge each individually, as the local agency in each jurisdiction uses different terminology. All of these categories, and their parent categories, are way too many to be discussed in a mass nomination. 117Avenue ( talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- In the link you have given, the closure is: "rename all as nominated". Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all. Canada is an on-the-fence country on this score. Transportation and transport seem to be used about equally. In that case, we should default to the majority of the world's usage, which is transport.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all to match Category:Transport in Canada and Transport in Canada. Oculi ( talk) 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all as Transport, not transportation, is the standard established by the top of the tree and per standard usage in a 'neutral' country, as per Mike and Oculi. -
The Bushranger posting as
Aerobird from a public computer
Talk 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would say the standard established by the tree is the one used by most of the tree, in this case, it is "transportation". And I don't see what a "neutral" country has to do with Canada, since this deals solely with Canadian categories. The US is a "neutral" (ie. non-Canadian) country, it uses "transportation". (I have no opinion on which side is better, but I think the opinions provided should be based on Canadian English when determining which way these categories are named)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's "neutral" as in "uses 'transport' and 'transportation' roughly equally in Canadian English" based on the comments above. And just because the majority of the tree uses a certain standard doesn't mean it's the right standard. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would say the standard established by the tree is the one used by most of the tree, in this case, it is "transportation". And I don't see what a "neutral" country has to do with Canada, since this deals solely with Canadian categories. The US is a "neutral" (ie. non-Canadian) country, it uses "transportation". (I have no opinion on which side is better, but I think the opinions provided should be based on Canadian English when determining which way these categories are named)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 21:23, 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:City airports
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inclusion criteria is too subjective. What exactly determines 'close proximity'? Why restrict the target to only business travelers? Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete vague marketting term. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Steam5 ( talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the fact that Detroit City Airport does not qualify because despite being in the city it is not in or in close proximity to Downtown Detroit (well, not by my definitions of close proximity, others may have different views) tells me this category is far too narrowly defined. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:47, 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.