Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12[edit]

Category:Baroda High School[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. I've added a hatnote to the article to disambiguate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Baroda Lions Club schools. This is not simply a matter of a shared name; these 3 schools are all run by the Baroda Lions Club Education Trust. With only 3 articles, there is a WP:SMALLCAT problem here (tho maybe the trust has more schools?) .... but the trust is a shared defining characteristic, so WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES does not apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While BHG is correct in this probably not being a shared name, there is no clear case that linking in the main article is not sufficient for sound navigation. If deleted recreation if there is a significantly larger number of school articles should be permitted. If kept, rename per BHG. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlise into a dab-page. That is the usual way that we deal with shared names. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the main page provides enough linking for the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2013 (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:Painter of the Wind[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Deleting. As you know, or should know, book+tv series+movie Painter of the Wind ( 바람의 화원) are about paintings of the Joseon period in Korea. The aim of this category is to identify all the paintings which are alluded to, as well as to compare the way they are alluded with the historical facts. The number of the involved paintings seems to be greater than 40: therefore OC#SMALL is irrelevant here. Pldx1 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if the intent is simply to categorize paintings that are alluded to in the series. If it's going to group articles that deal directly with the series, that would be a different matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being mentioned in a tv series is not a defining characteristic of a painting made long before the series came to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty and not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2013 (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 administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles[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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed title better reflects the scope of the category—administrators who will consider, but are free to decline, requests for copies of deleted articles—and the convention within Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. There is a talk page archive that might need to be moved manually. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do we really need this? I'm not in the category and commonly provide this based on the deleted content. Some deleted content is best summarized and not passed along. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not. There exist a couple of similar categories for admins who are willing to perform specific user-assistance functions, but providing copies of deleted articles (or, at least, directing a user to WP:REFUND) seems to be something that any admin ought to be willing to do as long as the circumstances are reasonable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 18:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, looks like it's about possibility, not guarantee. Brandmeistertalk 01:06, 13 March 2013 (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:Soap Opera Digest Award winners[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. A comprehensive set of lists already exists at Category:Soap Opera Digest Awards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This seems to violate the rule against categorizing by award. I read through the article on the award and really saw no evidence that this is a prestigious enough award to be an exception to the general rule. We already have a list so do not need to listify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 18:39, 12 March 2013 (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:United States House of Representatives special elections by state[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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only empty categories. —GoldRingChip 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless and until the subcats are deleted. If they go, then this can be speedy deleted as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 12 March 2013 (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:2001 Six Nations[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 (all contents are in the appropriate parent categories).--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. There are only two/three pages in the category and there will be certainly no more articles for the category. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:21, 12 March 2013 (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:Republican holders of the role of pontifex maximus[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: rename to Category:Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Republic. This may not be the best phrasing, so it's open to renomination. But it's an improvement on the current phrasing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More succinct, plural form per Pontifex Maximus. Brandmeistertalk 15:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't insist, but scholar sources show that Pontifices Maximi is an acceptable form in English: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Btw, aside from Latin words with English endings like referendum, there are those with original endings, like dictum (plural: dicta), tumulus (tumuli), etc. Brandmeistertalk 00:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that "holders of the role" has to go, but have no opinion on the best alternative. Since that earlier dismal discussion was brought up, let me point out that the problem with "Roman Magister Equitums" was completely different: there is no linguistic context in which equitums is acceptable or even makes any sense. The issue as I recall (I was rather new to these debates then and no doubt my deportment left much to be desired) was whether to use the English plural "Masters of the Horse" or the Latin plural Magistri equitum. There's one additional factor relevant to choosing the best name for the category: the reason (presumably) we categorize only Pontifices Maximi of the Republic is that during the Imperial period the emperor was the Pontifex Maximus. However, AFAIK there was only one Pontifex Maximus at a time, whereas in the 2nd century onward there might be legitimate co-emperors, and even earlier (as in 69 AD) there were short-lived emperors who may never have been formal "holders of the role" of Pontifex Maximus. The category name should allow for the creation of a general category for "Pontifices Maximi of ancient Rome" with subcategories for the historical periodization of ""Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Republic" and "Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Empire". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Republic. This is the correct Latin plural. It is important to refer to the Roman Republic, as subsequantly the emperor and now the Pope have this title. "holder" is inappropriate. WE do not have "Presidnet holders of United States". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Pontifix maximuses of the Roman Republic, this is the English not the Latin wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This last proposal is neither English nor Latin. It would be the equivalent of saying "Greats prezident of the United States". "Maximus" is an adjective; in anglicizing, it's the noun that has to be plural, since most adjectives in English don't change their form from singular to plural. I just don't think pontifex has become sufficiently anglicized to make an English plural from it (pontifexes?). The English translation is Pontiff, as in College of Pontiffs—but then what do you do with "Maximus"? So the situation is not like a Latin word that's in regular English usage. It's more a technical term for which no English equivalent exists. Peterkingiron's proposal seems to be the only workable one. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (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:Ancient Roman Empire[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 to Category:Roman Empire. This is a brute force solution. There are probably some articles and subcategories that would be better in Category:Ancient Rome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category seems to be a moot WP:ORish construction, that can be easily confused with Category:Roman Empire and which is redundant to Category:Ancient Rome. Formally and often actually the ancient Rome was not an empire "from c.700BC to approximately 44BC", as the category implies. Some related pages could be also recategorized into suitable subcats, such as Category:Roman Republic, where the container category is exactly Category:Ancient Rome. Brandmeistertalk 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Roman Republic consisted of a lot more than just the city, and is not the same thing as the Roman Empire, so this plan really does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2013 (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:Turisas[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 12 March 2013 (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:Music album templates[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: Rename
Jafeluv (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are as much navigational boxes as Category:Singles navigational boxes, and ideally should be categorised together in Category:Music navigational boxes. 86.40.193.140 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2013 (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:Net laying ships of the Royal Navy[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: rename all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ENGVAR applies here, I believe. While the category tree is Category:Net laying ships, and the main article is Net laying ship, that main article notes that "The British Admiralty knew such ships as a “boom defence vessel".", and the latter term appears to be the one used by British and Australian articles on ships of this type, and also sources. (Note also that I created all these categories, without realising the WP:ENGVAR difference here.) The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 12 March 2013 (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:Disney[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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the title of the main article, The Walt Disney Company. 86.40.193.140 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2013 (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.

Artist navigational boxes[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: rename all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be navigational boxes so fit into Category:People and person navigational boxes (perhaps any that aren't could be moved back to Category:Visual arts templates). 86.40.193.140 (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2013 (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.

Lisa Merkel[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: nothing here to discuss at CFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2012/may/09/merkel-elected-mayor-herndon/ http://www.reston-connection.com/news/2012/jun/26/herndon-mayor-merkel-new-council-sworn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaMerk (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 March 2013 (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:Little Pakistan[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: rename (C2A). The Bushranger One ping only 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category title should be plural, along the lines of other similar categories such as Category:Little Indias or Category:Little Italys. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2013 (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:Animals navigational boxes[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: rename to Category:Animal navigational boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This contains insects, spiders, birds, reptiles, fish and everything. The current title also looks a little out of place in Category:Navigational boxes which has more general subcategories (i.e. "biology" instead of "animals"), such as "arts and culture", "geography", "history and events" and everything. 86.40.193.140 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (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/2013_March_12&oldid=1138398291"