Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21[edit]

Category:Human–animal interaction[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 result of the discussion was: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As mentioned on the talk page, the difference in purpose is indiscernible from Category:Human-animal relationships, which was renamed to Category:Anthrozoology (original creator mentioned they were unaware of the other category). Both articles are redirects to Anthrozoology. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge other way to the much better known term. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how "Human–animal interaction" is a better-known term than Anthrozoology, unless you mean that "human" "animal" & "interaction" are more easily recognized words. In this context, Anthrozoology is a more used (if less recognizable) term than the exact phrase "Human–animal interaction". "Human–animal relationships" is an even more widely used term, but this is due in large part to a conflation with "Human–animal bonds" or "Human–animal bonding" (most laypeople equate "relationship" with "emotional bond"), so that wouldn't be an appropriate title. Besides, the parent article is at Anthrozoology. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one had never heard the term Anthrozoology though I have enough Greek to work out what it means; most of our readers won't. It is well established that category names sometimes need to differ from the main article for clarity. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia; the proper term should be used. No opposition to having the 'simple' term being a cat redirect afterwards. Note that if this was a rename it would be eligible for speedy renaming per criterion C2D. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above. That it could have been one of the many mistaken speedies that slip by every day because no one can be bothered to monitor the excesses there is no argument. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not mistaken. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tis (please continue by yourself) Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 23 July 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:Telecommunications terms[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 result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the course of cleaning up categorization of telecommunications articles, I found a lot of articles that were miscategorized under "Telecommunications terms". When I finished recategorizing these, I found that there was only one article left in this category. This category does not seem viable, because by policy Wikipedia articles are rarely about terms. The subject of an article is the thing that the title denotes, not the words of the title itself. This category was just a dumping ground containing a random mixture of hundreds of articles with nothing in common except that they were about telecommunications and they had a title. There were articles on techniques, theoretical concepts, specific pieces of hardware, and even one on a telecom company. Many were not in any other category. Lumping these all together as "telecommunications terms" is just meaningless. One might as well just put every telecommunications article in this one category. This category should never have enough articles to be viable, and is just a bad idea as it seems to encourage miscategorization.--Srleffler (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Middle mile may be a valid article for this category. The other two articles do not comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines in their current form. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a single article is not generally supposed to cover unrelated meanings of a single word or phrase. These articles need to either be split up into separate articles on each meaning, or split and merged into other articles, or be moved to Wiktionary. In some cases several of these dictionary definition list articles can be split and merged with related dicdef lists to make several pretty good stubs. In any of these cases, the articles that remain on Wikipedia won't be articles on "terms", but rather articles on the things that those terms denote.
There are many telecomm articles like this, because years ago Wikipedia jump-started the production of telecomm articles by importing a public-domain telecommunications glossary, making dictionary-style "stub" articles for many hundreds of telecomm terms. Many of these could easily be converted into encyclopedic form, and the majority have been reformatted in the years since. More work needs to be done on this.
Even if there are five or six articles that are legitimately about telecommunications terms, I do not feel that that is enough to justify keeping the category, especially given that the existence of the category tends to lead to bad categorization. (People think anything with a title is an article on a "term", so any telecomm article can be dumped into this category, and no further categorization is needed.)--Srleffler (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For both Hop (telecommunications) and Master station, I was able to make them into articles about a single thing, rather than on multiple uses of a term. I have recategorized them accordingly.--Srleffler (talk) 03:35, 25 July 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:People educated at Presentation College, Reading[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 result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural listing following the recent discussion for Category:People educated at Elvian School, where a consensus appeared to form for merging this category, which reflects the institution's former name, to the category showing the institution's current name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is a typical case of the convention that alumni of a predecessor institution are treated as successor of the alumni. A head note will be needed to explain this, since the names are so different. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 22 July 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:Fictional gunfighters[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 result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough of a definite characteristic. It is too debatable what qualifies as a "gun fighter". JDDJS (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my biggest issue with this is that it is a subcat of Category:Western (genre) characters yet it includes lots of characters not from the western genre. It seems to have been massively misused, in large part because as originally proposed it would be an almost pointless subdivision since the majority of characters in weterns are gunfighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Past precedent that we don't categorise fictional characters by an object/item (a "gun"). - jc37 02:58, 23 July 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nottoohappy[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 result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SOCK ("Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny."), I don't believe this category should ever have been created. See also the SPI report. Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 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:Songs about poverty[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 result of the discussion was: no consensus. Some pruning may be required.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one of these songs has text that says it is about poverty, others are silent about what the lyrics are about, some articles say the song is about other things including one, which, apparently is about "a black president of the US." The category doesn't actually specify what kind of poverty, poverty of ideas perhaps? At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING. Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics.
It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels. Richhoncho (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another case of over categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since when does something have to be in the lede to be defining? Fast Car#Content begins "The song is a narrative tale of generational poverty" and expands from there. WP:V only requires citations for statements that are likely to be challenged, and I can't see why that statement would be challenged; it could probably be easily cited anyway. It seems to me that there is plenty of scope to keep this category, even if it might need pruning. At worst, listify and move sub-cat Category:Songs about homelessness up into parent categories Category:Works about poverty and Category:Songs by theme. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The word poverty isn’t only money-related, it can also mean scarcity or dearth of anything. You yourself have acknowledged this by pointing out Fast Car is about generational poverty. “Poverty” is also a very subjective word – one man’s riches etc. Some of the songs refer to ghettoes, but it would be abstract and incorrect to assume any song about a ghetto is also about poverty. Therefore this category fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have also looked at a quite few of the articles in this category, making comments at User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme. This is the problem with all the songs by theme categories. Lists may work better providing they are referenced and not allowed to develop as categories have done.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify per Johnpacklambert. -NorsemanII (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not in any way suggest listifying this category. Anyway is "Richard Cory" (sorry if I misspelled it) a song about poverty or a song about suicide?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 11 August 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:Latin alphabets[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 result of the discussion was: keep. There's no consensus for change here, but a nomination for a restoration of Category:Latin-derived alphabets might meet with greater success.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) The article Latin alphabet is about the alphabet or alphabets used to write the Latin language. 2) The article Latin script is about the Latin script as defined by Unicode and includes letters from the Latin alphabet(s) and other characters. The Latin alphabet belong is one alphabet that uses the Latin script. 3) The category that is named "Latin alphabets" does contain alphabets using the Latin script as defined in (2) and is not restricted to the alphabet or alphabets as defined by (1) "Latin alphabet". If the category is renamed as proposed the name would be consistent with the definitions (1) and (2).
Some categories and articles that use "Latin-script":
For the hyphen see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Inconsistency - Latin script vs Latin-script Indiana State (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This makes very little difference, but "Latin alphabet(s)" is the normal phrasing. (In text, "a Latin alphabet" or "Latin alphabets" is sufficient to indicate that we are not speaking of the Latin alphabet itself.) The proposer just moved some of these articles, so it's maybe a bit early to see if anyone will object. (Probably not.) If we move this, the hyphen is required, or it would read as calligraphic hands used for Latin. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Maybe there is not even THE Latin alphabet. The article Latin alphabet itself lists "Archaic Latin alphabet" and "Classical Latin alphabet", which could be regarded as two alphabets to write the Latin language, or short two "Latin alphabets". And here the name is inconsistent with the 2011 created Category:Latin alphabets. The alphabets in the category are not alphabets that would be listed in the article Latin alphabet like "Archaic Latin alphabet" and "Classical Latin alphabet". Indiana State (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - I wrote the following before the above response by Kwamikagami) It follows an additional note. I found several red links to Category:Latin-derived alphabets, a page User:Kwamikagami deleted: 16:35, 16 August 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Latin-derived alphabets (C1: Empty category). Checking the first alphabet in the list I found that at 10:55 of that day Kwamikagami switched the category from "Latin-derived alphabets" to "Latin alphabets", that means Kwamikagami worked on emptying the established category, which has been used already in 2004 [2]. I don't see any discussion for this emptying nor deletion. This might also constitute a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, since in the creation of the new category Kwamikagami didn't provide a reference to creators of the category. Indiana State (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: WikiProject Writing systems has been notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as both more technically accurate name, but also as good precedent for other categories, eg Arabic-script alphabets, etc. VanIsaacWScontribs 07:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We've had several long discussions on the terminology to use on WP. We decided to use "script" for the basic writing system, and "alphabet" for applications of that script to an individual language. (Not quite the same as "orthography", which includes spelling rules: GB and the US use the same Latin alphabet, but with different orthographies; English and Italian use different Latin alphabets.) The category would presumably need to cover both the original Latin alphabet and the many Latin-derived alphabets. VanIsaac makes a good point that whatever we do here should apply equally well to Arabic, Cyrillic, etc. alphabets. I don't think the name matters too much, but in general simpler is better, and "Latin alphabets" is about as simple as we're going to get. It's also the COMMONNAME. — kwami (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am with the simplicity kwami mentions. Also our earlier usage of script versus alphabet (noted) is useful & stable, especially when it is done over multiple scripts (Cyrillic, ...). The proposal's opening points are not strong enough, since both 1 and 2 are based on wp article titles. These might be wrong or imprecise, someone could change them for good reason, or disambiguate them, all of that would take some base from this proposal. And indeed Unicode uses "Latin" meaning "Latin script". Then adding the word script as proposed, and for that reason even, we have created a word saying "Latin script-script". That is not nice reading. -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unicode is not a general purpose encyclopedia. Unicode does not care about languages. The word Latin does not refer to the Latin language in their system. But in Wikipedia the word Latin can refer to the language or the script. Triomio (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 3 August 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:Lowell State College alumni[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 result of the discussion was: merge. This is a simple name change, unlike the one below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lowell State College is a direct predecessor institution to UMass Lowell. Therefore, by standard procedure, its (one) alumni should be categorised under UMass Lowell. The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People who graduated from Lowell State College didn't attend UMass Lowell. Listing them as UMASS Lowell alumni would be incorrect. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the school's name is changed but it's the same institution (Lowell State College → University of Lowell → UMass Lowell) Wikipeida's standard procedure is to categorise by the most recent name of the college, regardless of what the name was at the time of the person's attending. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 6 August 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:Boston State College alumni[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 result of the discussion was: no consensus. This one does seem different, as jc37 says, and the school seems to recognize that the merger was a big deal. The precedent for merging the categories of old institutions into new ones is clear, though. So if other discussions produce consensus around merging, this might warrant another look.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Boston State College merged with UMass Boston in 1982; therfore, its alumni should be categorised under the latter. The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bushranger, so what happens next with Category:Boston State College faculty and the root category Category:Boston State College? By the new standard, would these also get merged or stay as is? BTW this is not an other stuff exists claim. I would strongly support the new standard if it is letting all these categories go and have some second thoughts about the logic of half the measure. Complete merger doesn't mean that one cannot start with CfDing one tree or another! gidonb (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I hadn't seen those - I'm currently just working through the "Foo State alumni" category tree. But yeah, those should probably be upmerged too - I'll add them to the nomination, thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The same should apply to other Boston State College cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after reassurance that all or most of the "predecessor" school categories will be nominated; It increases the focus of the categorization trees. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose People who graduated from BSC didn't attend UMass Boston, so they shouldn't be claimed as UMass Boston alumni. If we've been doing the same thing for other colleges, we should have stopped long ago. Mangoe (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you need to bring up a truly massive discussion, as this is the accepted consensus for colleges throughout. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    discussion here, then. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this should probably be a subcategory for alumni, as they still have different reunions and such. Check out the website. Boston State College alumni would not likely call themselves University of Massachusetts Boston alumni. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnny, I followed your link and have a question. If they'd be so opposed to being considered University of University of Massachusetts alumni, why would they let the University of Massachusetts Boston Alumni Relations organize their events? gidonb (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say they're opposed, I said they would not likely call themselves University of Massachusetts Boston alumni, because they did not graduate from that school. If I was married in a church that was later condemned and a Taco Bell was built in its place, I would not tell people I was married in a Taco Bell (well, maybe as a joke). Graduation is a one-time life-changing event, like birth, marriage, and death. The location in relation to that person only matters at the moment of graduation, not before or after. UMass Boston Alumni Relations organizes events because the other school does not exist any more. Who cares who organizes? What matters is who attends, and the alumni of different schools have different events. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Johnny, it's not only the alumni relations, to which you offered the link yourself. Their records are also held by UMB. This is also where they get their transcripts. BSC alumni is already a sub of UMB, so they are already included in the UMB alumni. The proposal only simplifies and focuses a structure that is already in place. gidonb (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This really seems like a bad idea. It's one thing if a school is renamed (which is the precedent i've seen in the past here), but this just seems different somehow. In particular since the two schools co-existed. - jc37 03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per jc37. I am unhappy with the convnention but this is not simply a question of renaming an institution. In this case we have one college being subsumed by another, when both of them had existed separately alongside each other. This merger would rewrite history, by labelling some alumni as having attended UMass Boston, when they actually attended a rival institution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment New York University and Wayne State University have truly complexed histories of how they came to be their current institutions, but we still classify as their alumni all who attended any institution that eventually merged into that institution. There are several other examples. The clear precedent is that we include people of merged in institution under the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Our focus when categorising needs to be accuracy, not convenience. And if there are other mis-categorised people, then that should be corrected. - jc37 05:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem with that view is that in some cases articles will say people graduated from NYU or Wayne State University, even though the graduation was from an institution that may or may not have been the primary predecessor institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 3 August 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:St. Francis College (Maine) alumni[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 result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: St. Francis College is the former name of the University of New England (formed via merger with the New England College of Osteopathic Medicine, which had in turn been essentially a division of St. Francis all along). Per Wikipedia's standards, alumni of renamed higher education facilities are categorised under the facility's current name. The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I am disappointed that a univeristy has to have a disambiguator, but there is another in Autralia. In view of recent discussion on Cal Poly, I wonder whether Category:University of New England, Maine alumni might not be a better target. This would involkve also renaming the main article - on the university, and possibly sibling categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it wouldn't - we don't disambiguate using ", dab" unless it's part of the actual name of the institution. Wikipedia's standard is "(dab)". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 23 July 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:Cobb Divinity School alumni[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 result of the discussion was: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cobb Divinity School was affiliated with Bates College (aka Bates Theological Seminary) for most of its existence, and wound up becoming Bates' religion department. Therefore, I believe the standard calls for Cobb's graduates to be categorized with Bates'. The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it is justifiable to have seperate entries for seperate divisions of a school, but with one article in the category it does not seem justifiable in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...oh, crap, I hadn't realised that it was in the Divinity tree - I should have had more caffiene in me. Given that I need to withdraw/oppose my own nomination (WP:SMALLCAT's exemption allows for a single-article cat in an established tree, which the alumni-by-divinity-school tree is). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 23 July 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:LGBT people from Liverpool & Merseyside[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 result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not need or want to start subcategorizing LGBT people by individual city that they come from; categorization by country and/or occupation is sufficient. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do occupation by city, but as far as I can tell avoid non-occupation divisions at city level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 21 July 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:Chicago Academy of Fine Arts alumni[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 result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chicago Academy of Fine Arts redirects to School of the Art Institute of Chicago, as it is a former name of the SAIC. The standard is to categorise alumni by the current name of the institution, I believe. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 21 July 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_21&oldid=1087824936"