Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22

Category:Original image files

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 October 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: a very small subset of what is out there, difficult to get anywhere near a complete coverage of the topic and of little use to the project. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia icons

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 CfD October 10. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only contains three images and the topic is far better covered by the Wikipedia categories over at Commons. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment merge to whatever the category is that is used to hold all images on Wikipedia kept here for project process reasons, which should be all fully protected images similar to these. If we don't keep local files of anything else for these purposes, then we shouldn't have these three images either (they are already on commons), if we do, then they should be categorized together. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There are other icons such as those in Category:Wikipedia message box images, but that cat appears to be a useful distinct sub-cat of Category:Wikipedia images. At first I thought the contents should all be transwikied to Commons, but the creator ( User:Anomie) of File:Blocked user PD.svg has requested that a local copy be kept, and the edit history of another member, File:User-info.svg, includes: "This is used in the interface, thus high-risk and thus locally uploaded and protected here". – Fayenatic L ondon 17:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Health, education, and welfare economics

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: procedural close. I agree that a greater discussion has to happen before we can deal with the details.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Health, education, and welfare economics to Category:Health, education, and welfare (economics). The change would parallel the naming convention of Category:Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics). Both categories mimic there proper JEL classification codes, which leave out "(economics)". The addition of "(economics)" is necessary to mark each as a specialized usage of the correct shorter term from the JEL codes (an econ source). Its current form is not only inexact (because of the added 'economics') but misleads by suggesting that Welfare economics is classified under that category. The latter is false. Rather, Welfare econ is classified under JEL: D6 (source: JEL Classification Codes Guide at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php: there click on [JEL:] I Health, Education, and Welfare, then [JEL:] I3 Welfare and Poverty for reference to JEL: D6 as not a "Poverty and welfare" category ).
P.S. How does one remove the apparently transcluded and incorrectly placed Category:Welfare economics from Category:Health, education, and welfare economics as a subcategory there? Thank you. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment. I recently closed a huge CfD Sept 11 discussion on JEL codes as "no consensus", with a suggestion that editors may want to consider an RFC to decide the principle of whether (and to what extent) Wikipedia categories should seek to follow JEL codes. There was followup discussion on my talk and on the nominator's talk.
    I remain concerned that unless a broader consensus is sought on the principle, there may be many further discussions which re-examine that underlying question, with possibly inconsistent results. I have no view either way on that substantive question, but I do think that editors should seek to avoid the instability which can result from examining specific instances before resolving underlying broad questions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close this should be hashed out in a way that people most familiar with the issues at hand participate. Developing a clear consensus to follow JEL and than applying it is what should be done. Right now this is an attempt at ad hoc application of JEL rules and that should be avoided. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diasporas

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, clear consensus against treating the word as uncountable as proposed. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Without considering the previous arguments regarding using the term, the word diaspora is uncountable. [1] The category should be renamed to be grammatically correct. Paul_012 ( talk) 18:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 20:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the dictionary is clearly not tracking true usage of the word, and the entry was only for British English. [2] Even such learned institutions such as Oxford uses "diasporas", and the Economist or UNESCO. Further, from the SAME DICTIONARY, it shows it is Countable [3] -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Has the nominator looked at the contents? There are multiple sub-categories for specific, individual diasporas -- each of which is a (singular) "diaspora". Regardless of the original Latin usage, the term has been Anglicized - and pluralized through the addition of an "s". Cgingold ( talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Diasporas is a proper plural much like peoples. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Diaspora may be a concept, but the term is largely applied to scattered emigrants. The emigrants from A and the emigrants from B are each a diaspora, but in common usage together they would be two diasporas. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I disagree that dispora has been anglicised that the word should have an S added to make it "diasporas". Anyone want to tell me about the fishes that swim in the sea or the deers that ran across a road? Anyway, check out [4] for many dictionary definitions. (I found it interesting that the word comes from the Greek Septuagint.) Regardless, we should be careful of WP:NEO. - jc37 19:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    It appears in the Cambridge English dictionary as countable, since that is a major English-language dictionary, NEO says this means it doesn't apply. And the UNESCO, Economist, Oxford usages are not just uses in passing, they are specifically about diasporas, so also per NEO, NEO doesn't apply in these cases. As for meridex, it doesn't even reliably show if something is countable or has a plural form, since many dictionary entries it draws from don't list such information. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 22:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    I found it interesting that you removed the cambridge link. Could it be because, as you note, dictionaries have not consistently shown the -s for plural?
    (And note, some dictionaries only accept capitalised usage, no lower case usage, which could possibly make adding -s problematic.)
    Regardless, since reliable sources differ like this, we should go to the older form. And as I am seeing in the sources, even those which support the use of -s suggest that this is a new usage. So with that in mind, we should default to the older term, per WP:NPOV. It is not up to us to decide that diasporas is now the "correct" plural form. (Hence my suggestion to be careful of WP:NEO.) - jc37 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The OED would seem to disagree with the idea that this is countable. [5] and [6]. - jc37 00:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    I removed it because I already entered the link before, in my opinion. It says it is Countable. Read it yourself. I had figured I might be overloading the same link, but since you're making such a big brouhaha over it, here it is again. It is correct, since it appears in dictionaries. English is not a language defined by a language institute, and we do not default to older forms of English just because they are older. Clearly the Economist, UNESCO and Oxford think it is proper to use the "-s" form. English is not a dead language, it does evolve. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    You misunderstand. We default to the older form, because we cannot make the determination when sources differ so much on this. If we made such determination, it would be WP:OR. - jc37 23:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The King James Bible uses fishes. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The KJV intentionally uses poetic language : ) - jc37 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Use Diasporas. The historical usage was "The Diaspora" refering to the dispersion of the Jews. Using Diaspora for any other group is a fairly recent inovation. However I think people is a good equivalent term. A Diaspora is the massive dispersion of a people. The key is this is a container category for multiple disaporas, so the plural should be used. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per JPL. The term is no longer used exclusively for the Jewish disapora, and is now idely used for other peoples who are dispersed. This is now a set category, and per WP:CATNAME#General_conventions it should take the plural form. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Unless this is going to be restricted to refer to the dispersion of Jewish populations exclusively, then this is the term that should be used for a myriad of reasons (though I won't waste my time listing all 10,000 of them). Alansohn ( talk) 19:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Terms to 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. There is a general mooting that something should be done, but no agreement as to what. Probably discussion elsewhere is needed to decide the eventual state of this set of categories. - Splash - tk 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose
  1. Merger of Category:Technical terms to Category:Technical terminology
  2. Renaming of the following:
Procedural listing. This is a procedural followup to CfD 2012 August 24, where there was a consensus to merge Category:Terms to Category:Terminology. The majority of editors there supported merging the sub-categories too. It was noted there that this preference contradicts the outcome of the RFC in June 2012, which was that " Category:Terminology should only contain articles, which discuss the concept of terminology and that articles about specific terminology should be placed in a another category".
I have no preference either way, and make this nomination solely to allow interested editors to seek a consensus on how to proceed. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all to "concepts" I have always hated these "terminology" categories, and I treat them as junk categories for articles that do not properly fit other categories. Universally, they should be deleted (everything on Wikipedia can be called "terminology" so it's a useless distinction) and the content should be moved/merged to some subcategory of Category:Concepts.
  • If terminology categories are bad, I can't see the point of renaming them "concepts". They will still be just as bad. Spinning Spark 19:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh* No, no they will not. "Concept" is well defined, and is one of four fundamental categories into which every Wikipedia article should be placed into a subcategory. "Terminology" doesn't fit into this scheme at all. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are many other "... Terms" categories (e.g. Category:Academic terms, Category:Election campaign terms). Many/most/all of the articles (e.g. Harbor) in these cats shouldn't really be under Category:Language at all. DexDor ( talk) 19:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Decide principle first of what the content of these categories should be. Would the closer of this debate please make it transparently clear what the decision is. The previous CfD was closed without doing this, and the RfC needed a prompt from me before the closer did so. Despite both of these discussions, some editors are still proceeding to empty terminology categories on the grounds that they should not be under cat:language. See User talk:DexDor#Terminology for instance. If we don't want terms in terminology categories then fine, remove them, or if we want to keep them, then keep them, but what is totally pointless is repeatedly shuffling them between the two categories without a clear goal in mind. Again, would the closer please state this. My preference is to keep the content by the way. Spinning Spark 19:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The August 24 CFD did not reach a consensus on what the content of these categories should be. Several suggestions were offered which related to that issue, but there was nothing resembling a consensus. It would be entirely wrong for any closer to attempt to announce a consensus where the discussion has not formed a consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    Ha ha, so it will go on forever with the zealots deleting and restoring and nothing ever decided because insufficient editors are interested enough to take part in these discussions. Good luck with that, but I am now unwatching everything to do with terminology so please don't reply here, I won't be listening. Spinning Spark 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close - I think the point that technically nearly every page name in the encyclopedia for a concept is a "term", is well taken. This essentially duplicates a LOT of categories. As such, this would be better served if this became an RfC. I don't want to see a delete yet because a merge of some kind may be possible, and I'd like to see that more broadly discussed. - jc37 20:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • How do you propose persuading more people to take part than did in the last RfC? Spinning Spark 23:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. There are some broader concerns here that should be put aside for a while, because right now we have a situation where some categories use "terms" and others use the synonymous "terminology." Let's make sure that we standardize to one of those. I vastly prefer "terminology," in accordance with the previous discussion.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Question. Have editors considered listifying the "terms" categories to list-articles in the appropriate terminology categories?
    I wonder if that might be a solution which would meet most of the concerns of a) those who fear that "terms" categories could include a huge proportion of articles, and b) those who want to be able to navigate between the articles on important terms for each topic? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
(this is getting a bit off the topic of this CfD, but to answer the question) If a "Foo terminology" category was listified to "List of foo terms" I don't think it'd make a very useful list. For example it would include some names (e.g. Yaesu FT-77 (S)). From looking through the history of some articles it appears that if an early revision of an article read "Foo is a term that refers to ..." (and many new articles do) then it's likely to be placed in a terminology cat - and still be there after the lead sentence has been wikified to "A foo is ..." and content (about the subject, not the word) has been added. So in many cases you'd be creating a "List of articles that were mis-categorised ". And I do mean "mis-categorised" - e.g. POMCUS is about logistics, not about language. I'm not sure what you mean by "articles on ... terms" - are you referring to "articles whose titles are terms" (much of WP) or "articles about terms" (of which there are a few, e.g. Fat cat (term)). DexDor ( talk) 17:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Close. This is way too broad. I came here from an article I was reading on wine, because "wine terms" is a standard phrase which is used something like 10 times as often as "wine terminology". On arriving here I see lots of other phrases thrown in, and each would need individual consideration as to which is the more appropriate. "Wine terms" meets WP:CATNAME, "Wine terminology" would not. I suspect that might be true for some but not all of the others. Making a decision for one which then applies to the others is not appropriate, especially as "terms" can have a diffeent meaning to "terminology" depending on the context. And making a blanket decision based only on a definition of "terminology" without a consideration of each unique full phrase or the topic being categorised does not make sense. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jeffersontown, Kentucky

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: procedural close, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 3 articles in the category and the town has about 25000 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko ( talk) 13:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Jefferson County is Louisville Metro. Someone probably just created this category to distinguish between it and Louisville. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: There is opportunities to fill it out, and it is a sizable portion of Louisville metro, not some small tract.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Salyersville, Kentucky

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: procedural close, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 1 articles in the category and the town has less than 1900 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko ( talk) 13:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Never been to Salyersville, but from what I hear about it, I doubt there's any reason to have this category. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anchorage, Kentucky

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: procedural close, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. ------
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 2 articles in the category and the town has less than 2500 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko ( talk) 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Jefferson County is Louisville Metro. Someone probably just created this category to distinguish between it and Louisville. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: There is opportunities to fill it out, of a historical nature. Plus, with a very prominent citizen there can be room for growth.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Touch (TV series)

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 CfD 2012 October 10. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Response One of them is the footer to the same three articles (nominated at TfD) and one is an image used in one of the articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - contents don't justify a separate category for the series, seems unlikely that the show will generate enough articles to warrant a dedicated category. Buck Winston ( talk) 06:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per The Bushranger, five items are enough, borderline. It is likely that more pages are created, such as season pages, etc., also. TBr and ley 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rathore

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Our long standing consensus here and at WT:INB is that biographies are not categorized by Caste/Clans etc for people from the subcontinent. The most recent discussion at CfD which has relevant links to past discussions is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Category:Rajput people. While this particular one doesn't have the "people" tag in the name, it is used only for that purpose, so delete. — Spaceman Spiff 04:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_22&oldid=1141927959"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22

Category:Original image files

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 October 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: a very small subset of what is out there, difficult to get anywhere near a complete coverage of the topic and of little use to the project. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia icons

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 CfD October 10. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only contains three images and the topic is far better covered by the Wikipedia categories over at Commons. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment merge to whatever the category is that is used to hold all images on Wikipedia kept here for project process reasons, which should be all fully protected images similar to these. If we don't keep local files of anything else for these purposes, then we shouldn't have these three images either (they are already on commons), if we do, then they should be categorized together. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There are other icons such as those in Category:Wikipedia message box images, but that cat appears to be a useful distinct sub-cat of Category:Wikipedia images. At first I thought the contents should all be transwikied to Commons, but the creator ( User:Anomie) of File:Blocked user PD.svg has requested that a local copy be kept, and the edit history of another member, File:User-info.svg, includes: "This is used in the interface, thus high-risk and thus locally uploaded and protected here". – Fayenatic L ondon 17:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Health, education, and welfare economics

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: procedural close. I agree that a greater discussion has to happen before we can deal with the details.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Health, education, and welfare economics to Category:Health, education, and welfare (economics). The change would parallel the naming convention of Category:Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics). Both categories mimic there proper JEL classification codes, which leave out "(economics)". The addition of "(economics)" is necessary to mark each as a specialized usage of the correct shorter term from the JEL codes (an econ source). Its current form is not only inexact (because of the added 'economics') but misleads by suggesting that Welfare economics is classified under that category. The latter is false. Rather, Welfare econ is classified under JEL: D6 (source: JEL Classification Codes Guide at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php: there click on [JEL:] I Health, Education, and Welfare, then [JEL:] I3 Welfare and Poverty for reference to JEL: D6 as not a "Poverty and welfare" category ).
P.S. How does one remove the apparently transcluded and incorrectly placed Category:Welfare economics from Category:Health, education, and welfare economics as a subcategory there? Thank you. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment. I recently closed a huge CfD Sept 11 discussion on JEL codes as "no consensus", with a suggestion that editors may want to consider an RFC to decide the principle of whether (and to what extent) Wikipedia categories should seek to follow JEL codes. There was followup discussion on my talk and on the nominator's talk.
    I remain concerned that unless a broader consensus is sought on the principle, there may be many further discussions which re-examine that underlying question, with possibly inconsistent results. I have no view either way on that substantive question, but I do think that editors should seek to avoid the instability which can result from examining specific instances before resolving underlying broad questions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close this should be hashed out in a way that people most familiar with the issues at hand participate. Developing a clear consensus to follow JEL and than applying it is what should be done. Right now this is an attempt at ad hoc application of JEL rules and that should be avoided. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diasporas

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, clear consensus against treating the word as uncountable as proposed. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Without considering the previous arguments regarding using the term, the word diaspora is uncountable. [1] The category should be renamed to be grammatically correct. Paul_012 ( talk) 18:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 20:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the dictionary is clearly not tracking true usage of the word, and the entry was only for British English. [2] Even such learned institutions such as Oxford uses "diasporas", and the Economist or UNESCO. Further, from the SAME DICTIONARY, it shows it is Countable [3] -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Has the nominator looked at the contents? There are multiple sub-categories for specific, individual diasporas -- each of which is a (singular) "diaspora". Regardless of the original Latin usage, the term has been Anglicized - and pluralized through the addition of an "s". Cgingold ( talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Diasporas is a proper plural much like peoples. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Diaspora may be a concept, but the term is largely applied to scattered emigrants. The emigrants from A and the emigrants from B are each a diaspora, but in common usage together they would be two diasporas. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I disagree that dispora has been anglicised that the word should have an S added to make it "diasporas". Anyone want to tell me about the fishes that swim in the sea or the deers that ran across a road? Anyway, check out [4] for many dictionary definitions. (I found it interesting that the word comes from the Greek Septuagint.) Regardless, we should be careful of WP:NEO. - jc37 19:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    It appears in the Cambridge English dictionary as countable, since that is a major English-language dictionary, NEO says this means it doesn't apply. And the UNESCO, Economist, Oxford usages are not just uses in passing, they are specifically about diasporas, so also per NEO, NEO doesn't apply in these cases. As for meridex, it doesn't even reliably show if something is countable or has a plural form, since many dictionary entries it draws from don't list such information. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 22:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    I found it interesting that you removed the cambridge link. Could it be because, as you note, dictionaries have not consistently shown the -s for plural?
    (And note, some dictionaries only accept capitalised usage, no lower case usage, which could possibly make adding -s problematic.)
    Regardless, since reliable sources differ like this, we should go to the older form. And as I am seeing in the sources, even those which support the use of -s suggest that this is a new usage. So with that in mind, we should default to the older term, per WP:NPOV. It is not up to us to decide that diasporas is now the "correct" plural form. (Hence my suggestion to be careful of WP:NEO.) - jc37 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The OED would seem to disagree with the idea that this is countable. [5] and [6]. - jc37 00:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    I removed it because I already entered the link before, in my opinion. It says it is Countable. Read it yourself. I had figured I might be overloading the same link, but since you're making such a big brouhaha over it, here it is again. It is correct, since it appears in dictionaries. English is not a language defined by a language institute, and we do not default to older forms of English just because they are older. Clearly the Economist, UNESCO and Oxford think it is proper to use the "-s" form. English is not a dead language, it does evolve. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    You misunderstand. We default to the older form, because we cannot make the determination when sources differ so much on this. If we made such determination, it would be WP:OR. - jc37 23:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The King James Bible uses fishes. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The KJV intentionally uses poetic language : ) - jc37 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Use Diasporas. The historical usage was "The Diaspora" refering to the dispersion of the Jews. Using Diaspora for any other group is a fairly recent inovation. However I think people is a good equivalent term. A Diaspora is the massive dispersion of a people. The key is this is a container category for multiple disaporas, so the plural should be used. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per JPL. The term is no longer used exclusively for the Jewish disapora, and is now idely used for other peoples who are dispersed. This is now a set category, and per WP:CATNAME#General_conventions it should take the plural form. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Unless this is going to be restricted to refer to the dispersion of Jewish populations exclusively, then this is the term that should be used for a myriad of reasons (though I won't waste my time listing all 10,000 of them). Alansohn ( talk) 19:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Terms to 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. There is a general mooting that something should be done, but no agreement as to what. Probably discussion elsewhere is needed to decide the eventual state of this set of categories. - Splash - tk 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose
  1. Merger of Category:Technical terms to Category:Technical terminology
  2. Renaming of the following:
Procedural listing. This is a procedural followup to CfD 2012 August 24, where there was a consensus to merge Category:Terms to Category:Terminology. The majority of editors there supported merging the sub-categories too. It was noted there that this preference contradicts the outcome of the RFC in June 2012, which was that " Category:Terminology should only contain articles, which discuss the concept of terminology and that articles about specific terminology should be placed in a another category".
I have no preference either way, and make this nomination solely to allow interested editors to seek a consensus on how to proceed. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all to "concepts" I have always hated these "terminology" categories, and I treat them as junk categories for articles that do not properly fit other categories. Universally, they should be deleted (everything on Wikipedia can be called "terminology" so it's a useless distinction) and the content should be moved/merged to some subcategory of Category:Concepts.
  • If terminology categories are bad, I can't see the point of renaming them "concepts". They will still be just as bad. Spinning Spark 19:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh* No, no they will not. "Concept" is well defined, and is one of four fundamental categories into which every Wikipedia article should be placed into a subcategory. "Terminology" doesn't fit into this scheme at all. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are many other "... Terms" categories (e.g. Category:Academic terms, Category:Election campaign terms). Many/most/all of the articles (e.g. Harbor) in these cats shouldn't really be under Category:Language at all. DexDor ( talk) 19:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Decide principle first of what the content of these categories should be. Would the closer of this debate please make it transparently clear what the decision is. The previous CfD was closed without doing this, and the RfC needed a prompt from me before the closer did so. Despite both of these discussions, some editors are still proceeding to empty terminology categories on the grounds that they should not be under cat:language. See User talk:DexDor#Terminology for instance. If we don't want terms in terminology categories then fine, remove them, or if we want to keep them, then keep them, but what is totally pointless is repeatedly shuffling them between the two categories without a clear goal in mind. Again, would the closer please state this. My preference is to keep the content by the way. Spinning Spark 19:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    The August 24 CFD did not reach a consensus on what the content of these categories should be. Several suggestions were offered which related to that issue, but there was nothing resembling a consensus. It would be entirely wrong for any closer to attempt to announce a consensus where the discussion has not formed a consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    Ha ha, so it will go on forever with the zealots deleting and restoring and nothing ever decided because insufficient editors are interested enough to take part in these discussions. Good luck with that, but I am now unwatching everything to do with terminology so please don't reply here, I won't be listening. Spinning Spark 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close - I think the point that technically nearly every page name in the encyclopedia for a concept is a "term", is well taken. This essentially duplicates a LOT of categories. As such, this would be better served if this became an RfC. I don't want to see a delete yet because a merge of some kind may be possible, and I'd like to see that more broadly discussed. - jc37 20:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • How do you propose persuading more people to take part than did in the last RfC? Spinning Spark 23:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. There are some broader concerns here that should be put aside for a while, because right now we have a situation where some categories use "terms" and others use the synonymous "terminology." Let's make sure that we standardize to one of those. I vastly prefer "terminology," in accordance with the previous discussion.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Question. Have editors considered listifying the "terms" categories to list-articles in the appropriate terminology categories?
    I wonder if that might be a solution which would meet most of the concerns of a) those who fear that "terms" categories could include a huge proportion of articles, and b) those who want to be able to navigate between the articles on important terms for each topic? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
(this is getting a bit off the topic of this CfD, but to answer the question) If a "Foo terminology" category was listified to "List of foo terms" I don't think it'd make a very useful list. For example it would include some names (e.g. Yaesu FT-77 (S)). From looking through the history of some articles it appears that if an early revision of an article read "Foo is a term that refers to ..." (and many new articles do) then it's likely to be placed in a terminology cat - and still be there after the lead sentence has been wikified to "A foo is ..." and content (about the subject, not the word) has been added. So in many cases you'd be creating a "List of articles that were mis-categorised ". And I do mean "mis-categorised" - e.g. POMCUS is about logistics, not about language. I'm not sure what you mean by "articles on ... terms" - are you referring to "articles whose titles are terms" (much of WP) or "articles about terms" (of which there are a few, e.g. Fat cat (term)). DexDor ( talk) 17:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Close. This is way too broad. I came here from an article I was reading on wine, because "wine terms" is a standard phrase which is used something like 10 times as often as "wine terminology". On arriving here I see lots of other phrases thrown in, and each would need individual consideration as to which is the more appropriate. "Wine terms" meets WP:CATNAME, "Wine terminology" would not. I suspect that might be true for some but not all of the others. Making a decision for one which then applies to the others is not appropriate, especially as "terms" can have a diffeent meaning to "terminology" depending on the context. And making a blanket decision based only on a definition of "terminology" without a consideration of each unique full phrase or the topic being categorised does not make sense. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jeffersontown, Kentucky

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: procedural close, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 3 articles in the category and the town has about 25000 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko ( talk) 13:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Jefferson County is Louisville Metro. Someone probably just created this category to distinguish between it and Louisville. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: There is opportunities to fill it out, and it is a sizable portion of Louisville metro, not some small tract.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Salyersville, Kentucky

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: procedural close, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 1 articles in the category and the town has less than 1900 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko ( talk) 13:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Never been to Salyersville, but from what I hear about it, I doubt there's any reason to have this category. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anchorage, Kentucky

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: procedural close, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. ------
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 2 articles in the category and the town has less than 2500 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko ( talk) 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Jefferson County is Louisville Metro. Someone probably just created this category to distinguish between it and Louisville. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: There is opportunities to fill it out, of a historical nature. Plus, with a very prominent citizen there can be room for growth.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Touch (TV series)

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 CfD 2012 October 10. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Response One of them is the footer to the same three articles (nominated at TfD) and one is an image used in one of the articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - contents don't justify a separate category for the series, seems unlikely that the show will generate enough articles to warrant a dedicated category. Buck Winston ( talk) 06:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per The Bushranger, five items are enough, borderline. It is likely that more pages are created, such as season pages, etc., also. TBr and ley 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rathore

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Our long standing consensus here and at WT:INB is that biographies are not categorized by Caste/Clans etc for people from the subcontinent. The most recent discussion at CfD which has relevant links to past discussions is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Category:Rajput people. While this particular one doesn't have the "people" tag in the name, it is used only for that purpose, so delete. — Spaceman Spiff 04:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_22&oldid=1141927959"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE