Category:Cold War documentary films about nuclear command and control[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as overcategorisation; only contains a single article anyway. Robofish (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus; a future, broader nomination should work this out one way or the other. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There are three other similar categories and they all use "by country". The parent is "by nationality" though so it may be that the other three should be changed instead. Either way, as long as they all end up the same. 70.226.160.214 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Vague inclusion criteria, I can't see what connection there is between category and contents. Tim! (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Doctor Who. We hardly need much more than one category for a TV series, however popular. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Arguably almost every Doctor Who-related article could be considered part of its 'history'. Robofish (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Vague inclusion criteria, I can't see what connection there is between category and contents. Tim! (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Doctor Who. We hardly need a separate chronology category for a TV series. "Whoniverse" appears to be a neologism, and should be salted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Of no obvious use, and doesn't even contain the one thing you'd expect (a fictional chronology of Doctor Who serials). Robofish (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization - we dont categorize film by genre and year, just simply genre and decade. Lugnuts (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Breakdown by genre and decade seems sufficient. Shirtwaist☎ 21:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Confusing name, since ice hockey and field hockey navboxes are elsewhere. The Wikipedia article is inline hockey, though it might be better known to some as roller hockey.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds good; I don't think I considered that at the time. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. These are not time period-based categories; they are music style categories. And like everything else in the former Yugoslavia, this gets filed under "it's complicated."--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the mentioned period of Yugoslavia there was no clear Serbian nationality to music groups, unless properly referenced by sources. Otherwise not so NPOV. Honorsteem (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of the bigger scheme of genre by country. If the problem lies with the article, it should be removed from the category, not the other way around. Lugnuts (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia as a country didn't exist in the period (late 1970s–mid-1980s) the category is supposed to cover. -- Honorsteem (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia was a republic in Yugoslavia at the time. It had its own language and culture, etc.—which I assume included music. It just wasn't an independent state. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete Category:Narcotics as a redirect. The best solution might be to make Category:Narcotics some sort of disambiguation category. Users are free to attempt that if they wish.Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Change redirect (or Delete). Currently redirects to Category:Opioids. This is problematic because pages get automatically sorted as opioids even if they aren't. Would Category:General anesthetics be an appropriate redirect target? The only problem might be that "General anesthetics" usually means pharmaceuticals while "Narcotics" can be understood in more general terms. The article Narcotic also says that the term is not well defined (in the US), so simply deleting might avoid confusion. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although I agree that "narcotic" is an unscientific term, it is generally understood by the public to mean either opiates, drugs of abuse, or central nervous system depressants. Absent Category:CNS depressants or Category:Drugs of abuse, I think most readers thinking about narcotics would find it useful to be redirected to opioids. In contrast, I don't really think anyone would consider any of the modern inhalation general anesthetics to be narcotics, so I think that general anesthetics would actually be an unhelpful merge. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change nom to Delete. "it is generally understood by the public to mean either opiates, drugs of abuse, or central nervous system depressants": That's exactly my problem with this redirect. Sorting an article into this cat without actually opening the category page (eg. with HotCat) will cause a bot to sort the page into Cat:Opioids even if it is actually a drug of abuse, or a central nervous system depressant, or something similar. Category:Opioids already contains a few incorrect articles, but I can't tell whether they were sorted there by this mechanism. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I agree that Delete makes sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is, which is simply a redirect to Category:Opioids where the article Narcotic exists and shows why this redirect is appropriate. Hmains (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it show that? It says the term is imprecise, and so (in my opinion) it does not make a good title for a category, even as a redir (which only shows if the page is actually opened). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2011 (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:Women in theoretical computer science[edit]
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The cat "Women computer scientists" was subdivided in an arbitrary and non-useful way by User:Henriettapussycat a few months ago. Lots of women in computer science were assigned by this user to one category or the other. Computer science doesn't split up this cleanly, and most of these women don't fit one category or the other so well. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a separate proposal that we can consider. Right now it's not what we are discussing; just proposal we undo the recently added level of division of the women computer scientists. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Women computer scientists If we would have wanted a category intersection here it should have been between Category:Computer scientists by field of research and Category:Woman. "Applied computer science" is either to coarse or to fine grained here. It also need to be verified that the woman listed in this category are truly computer scientist and not computer programmers or other computer professionals. —Ruud 21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category for Ukraine. Note that the Category:Television programming by country has various countries using “programming”, “programs” or “programmes”. Hugo999 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Other such categories use "Alumni" rather than "graduates."-- Mike Selinker (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on having a standard term. Alumni means ex-student. Remember Tom Lehrer's song, "Halls of Ivy" I think, where he mentions "old graduates and old undergraduates" ie including those who did not graduate or dropped out! Hugo999 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all to "Graduates of FULLNAME". This will probably come up again as users notice that these are the only ones that don't use "Alumni of ...". As a closing note, I would only point out that "Alumni of" is more encompassing than "Graduates of", since "alumni" includes all who attended the institution, not just those who graduated from it.Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Military academies are distinct from higher education establishments. The term alumnus is never used (to the best of my knowledge) to refer to someone who has successfully completed a commissioning course at a British military academy. Terminological accuracy trumps category standardization. Greenshed (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the term alumnus not commonly used because there's something wrong with it, or it the term not commonly used because it's formal? If the former, then keep "graduates", but I suspect the latter is the case. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I suspect that the term alumnus is never used not just rarely used. Whether this is because it would be an error to describe a Sandhurst graduate as an alumnus of Sandhurst or not is difficult to say. However, military academies are not principally centres of learning (that nourish and foster their charges in the way that an academic institution does - see the definition of an alumnus) but are more akin to vocational training establishments if one were looking for a parallel in civilian life. Greenshed (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "alumni" + "sandhurst" does reveal that the term is used so my suspicions were incorrect. However it still sounds wrong and I would be in favour of moving the aforementioned list to List of graduates of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.Greenshed (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of it in use: The Brittania Association's slogan is "The Britannia Association -'Uniting all the alumni of Britannia Royal Naval College."--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The term alumni is a rare one in UK. There is thus no reason to change this form graduates. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "alumni" is rare, but it's only rare because it's a highly formal term, as Latinisms tend to be. I doubt it's rare because there's anything incorrect about it; generically, "alumni" just means "graduates". There are a few "alumni" categories in Category:Military academy graduates in the United Kingdom, for instance. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on graduates vs alumni but can we at least get the full institution names into the categories? "Woolwich graduates" is particularly meaningless to the uninitiated. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I noticed I left out the "the"s after "Alumni of" in the first three nominations. I have fixed those. Britannia doesn't seem to have one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Alumni is never commonly used in the UK for graduates of military academies. Unlike in many countries, they don't offer degrees and they're not universities. They are solely military training establishments and therefore should not be shoehorned into a category structure and terminology in which they don't really belong. We should probably expand the titles to make it clearer, however, and move to the "Graduates of Foo" form. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: are there any sources that indicate that Duntroon graduates are referred to as alumni? I've not heard this term used before, but of course it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, within the lexicon of the college, in my experience, members who complete the course are referred to as "graduates" of the college and one spends 18 long months aiming to "graduate" rather than aiming to "become an alumnus". For me, I would argue that "Category:Dutroon graduate" is in line with other military institutions such as "Category:Woolwich graduates" and "Category:Sandhurst graduates", but I note that they also appear to have been tagged for renaming. I wonder if there is a reason for this other than just internal consistency. I'm not experienced in the world of category names, though, so it would be great to get a broad range of opinions before we decide what to do here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, the phrase "Duntroon graduates" is meaningless to someone outside Australia. As Australians we know immediately what "Duntroon" is - but foreigners won't. So at a minimum, the title should be amended to "Royal Military College, Duntroon graduates", and we can argue over "graduates" vs "alumni" at a later date. Miracle Pen (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, that seems fair enough. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "graduate" is more correct terminology IMO as "alumni" simply isn't used in this context. Anotherclown (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current category title is far clearer, less clunky and uses the normal terminology for graduates of military academies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original suggestion, but support renaming to "Royal Military College, Duntroon graduates". The word "alumni" is simply never used in this context, and we should not mislead our readers for the sake of category system consistency. Duntroon is not like other universities in Australia anyway, so I don't think it's a huge problem if this one entry is different. Lankiveil(speak to me) 00:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nom. Also potentially ambiguous: the current name suggests it could mean documentary films made during the Cold War period but not necessarily about it. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The other tree was categorised one way; this one, about documentary films, is categorised in another. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But decade categories are not really a good idea over by century ones. In addition the by decade categories add in problems at the century boundary. 1900 is in the 19th century and not the 20th which is where we put the decade category for that boundary year. So keeping the year categories which do no harm is not an unreasonable alternative. While our coverage of the country is light, there is much material that can be added over time. Or if we really don't want the by year categories, just move them into the century ones.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are in the categories for "YEAR in South America", that might be enough. I agree that most of these are unlikely to have more than one article in them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We are not in the business of revisionism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2011 (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.
