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. Kbdank71 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or possibly Category:Films about mathematics and mathematicians. The present name implies that something about the medium itself is mathematical--this is, of course true in a general sense, but that is also true of every film and every medium. The proposed name is more clear. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems like a sensible change, the second while more acurate seems a bit of a mouthful.--Salix (talk): 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:57, 13 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the changing focus away from the iPhone and onto other form factors such as the iPad and Apple TV, the iPhone OS was renamed to iOS earlier in the year. Our mainspace article already reflects this update in nomenclature and so should our categories. - hahnchen 23:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Consistency with main article, and no problems with disambiguation. --Pnm (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Its actually a move that must be performed given that iPhone OS doesn't exist anymore as its now iOS KiasuKiasiMan 05:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator, but then recreate all existing titles as {{category redirect}}s. The older name will be familkiar to many editors, and the redirects will give them an easier path to the new categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 20 December 2010 (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:Converts to Non-Trinitarian Christianity from Eastern Orthodoxy[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. Kbdank71 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – there are several other subcats of Category:Converts from Eastern Orthodoxy which should also be upmerged. (One hears nothing of Non-Trinitarianism for decades and then suddenly cfds are awash with the term.) Occuli (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Any time a category consists of nothing but a polygamist mayor in Utah and a Jehovah Witness activist in Greece, you gotta ask yourself if it logically makes sense.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that statement should be added to WP:OCAT, verbatim. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Non-notable category. If not merged, this improperly named category needs to be moved such that Non-Trinitarian is changed to either nontrinitarian or non-Trinitarian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is anything to go by, denominationally splitting the latter category (Converts to Non-Trinitarian Christianity) would probably be unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, but I'm just not sure what benefit grouping them together would be. There is no parent category for adherents of non-Trinitarian religions, so it wouldn't be fitting in to any sort of overarching scheme. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm just suggesting where such a new category might go if it were created. However, I don't really think there is any pressing need for the new category, and I would prefer that the category in question just be merged per the nominator.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As far as I can see, this categ is currently used solely for the German politicians, so a rename is fine. I suggest that something be done with the title Category:National Liberal Party politicians to prevent it from simply being re-created by some well-intentioned editor who is not aware of the disambiguated categories. Maybe it could be a disambiguation category, using {{category ambiguous}}? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs to be a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:13, 13 December 2010 (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. If the main article gets renamed again, we can easily rename the cat to match. Kbdank71 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom I created this category, I suppose to match the then name of the main aritcle; this main article name has changed; so also should this category name. Hmains (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Here's to not having to rename it again! RevelationDirect (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to create a template that would alert a bot to move a category to always match the title of a particular article, so that if the article were renamed the category were automatically renamed? If anyone objected, they could just remove the template and/or go through a normal CFR. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but the crisis is not necessarily over yet. I would accordingly suggest renaming both the article and category to "Global financial crisis from 2007". When we are sure it is over we can rename both with a termintaion date, but we have just had to have the Irish banks bailed out and rumour suggest that the Spanish ones will be next. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (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: I just created this category, but in trying to populate it, I'm realizing the proposed new name makes a lot more sense, as it would allow Europe-wide, Arab world-wide, etc. phenomena to belong as well. Antisemitism doesn't exactly stop at a national border, so I think this allows for better categorization. Roscelese (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Current cat name is just fine. All the current subcats are by country; no reason to rename based on speculation as to what subtcats might be created later and which might fit better into a different category tree branch than this one. Hmains (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have clarified: articles currently exist on anti-Semitism in Europe, in the Arab world, etc., but I can't put them there! Because it's "by country." What I'd rather have is "by region," so that "Europe" could be a sub-cat and have sub-subcats of European countries, etc. It seems more reasonable. Roscelese (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename: The parent category is Category:Racism by country or region. I would suggest following that format because I'm not sure if the Regional category you proposed should include Country articles in this case. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Database researchers, technical writers, and computer programmers cover it well – those are the ways to be notable as a database professional. --Pnm (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 17:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I thought the cat might be distinguishing between county or other agency owned parks within Syracuse. Looking at the articles, that does not appear to be the case though. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Sri Lanka was known as Ceylon when the Senate existed. Category would also align with the main article for this catgory: Senate of Ceylon. obi2canibetalkcontr 18:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This is about something in history, so it makes sense. Linda Olive (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems logical but its parent category will dtill need to be a Sri Lankan one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom The valid historical reasons for doing so are recounted above. Hmains (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 17:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created one of these categories and I have no objections to the rename. I created the symphony category and just used the composition category as a guide. If they all match, then I'm good.DavidRF (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the inclusion of the patronymic provides his full Russian name. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most operas are set in real countries, but some are set in fictional, mythological or folkloric settings. Adding "fictional" and "folkloric" to the currect category name will cover all bases. A discussion on the subject can be found at Talk:Iolanthe#Category:operas_with_a_mythological_setting. GuillaumeTell 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is sensible to rename the category to add the "fictional" settings, as the nominator suggests. Currently, operas set in fictional locales are not covered by the category tree. I think that they should logically be grouped with those set in mythical and folkloric locales, especially as there is often some overlap between a "fictional" setting and a "mythological" or "folkloric" setting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the rename makes sense to me. Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as Ssilvers says, it's difficult to separate the concepts sometimes. Roscelese (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such an all-encompassing category as proposed is not defining or useful, especially when it excludes Ariadne auf Naxos because that has a named real "setting" - but then why is Rheingold etc there??? Actually I'm very dubious about the current name and definition, which seem to misuse both "setting" and "mythological". I could live with "Operas set in named fictional locations", but that's it. The Ring is set in Germany as far as I'm concerned. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the above
The category is not all-encompassing, it just encompasses operas that aren't set in a real country or countries.
Strauss's Ariadne auf Naxos is set in the house of the richest man in Vienna, not in a mythological or folkloric or fictional setting.
Nibelheim is in Germany, is it? And the Norns reside in Germany, too, do they?
Obviously the opera within the opera is set on Naxos. Are you saying (most of) the Rhine doesn't run through Germany? Certainly Nibelheim is in Germany, and Valhalla above it. One trouble is that to most people "a mythological setting" is not talking about the actual physical location of the action, or lack of one, but the origin of its subject matter. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naxos is an island in the Mediterranean. And I didn't mention the Rhine. --GuillaumeTell 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? I mentioned the Rhine, because it is why the Ring does not belong in this gimcrack category. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are entirely free to recategorise the Ring in Category:Operas set in Germany (and I might add that its present categorisation is nothing to do with me), although I find it difficult to argue with someone who regards Nibelheim as a real place. --GuillaumeTell 18:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a real location, just in a real country, or would an opera of Coronation Street have a "fictional, mythological and folkloric setting"? Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else (and there is plenty - see above), the "set in ... settings" wordings is unacceptably awkward. But this is a just a symptom here. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2010 (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:All articles with unsourced statements[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. Kbdank71 17:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have Category:Articles with unsourced statements where everything is organised by months. I don't see the reason to have all pages in a single category with 200k items. Nowadays we have tools to sum number of pages in suncategories, we have bots to organise everything by month, etc. I suggest we delete this category as it serves no purpose and only forces us to double categorise everything. Magioladitis (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as duplicate category. Linda Olive (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as creator, redundant historical category clutter. The original purpose was to provide fodder for Dragon's Flight's cat tracker which is no longer updated these many a long year - and we now have progress boxes. RichFarmbrough, 19:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep this and other similar categories. They hardly need any maintenance (they are added and removed automatically through the template), are hidden from views, and are used very very often (by editors or bots). This template has been viewed a whopping 25,000 times last month alone[1]. Fram (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page hits sound like a lot but are merely equivalent to each screen being viewed about once per day (200,000 items, at 200 per page = 1000 screens, hits per day c. 870). RichFarmbrough, 09:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
And why is that equivalence relevant? When using the cat through e.g. AWB, catscans, random functions, ..., you are using the whole category at once, not page by page. Very few actual views of tyhe cat will be done by going through it page by page... Fram (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bots can use the Articles with unsourced statements category and its subcategories. Moreover, editors are adviced to start fixing pages which have the unsourced statement for longer time. And there is something else: This deletion will help us to simplify lot of templates that now add pages to both categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Said "simplification" exists of the removal of the line "|cat=[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]]" from e.g. Template:Citation needed. Not really the most complex code or the most impressive gain you get by this deletion. Apart from that: yes, bots and editors can use other categories and subcategories for this, but why should they? Why use a recursive, subcategory search when you can do it in one go? And editors are not adviced to start sourcing the oldest pagess first, it is just one of the options. Any unsourced page that is fixed, any unsourced statement that is sourced, is a gain for Wikipedia, and we should provide editors with as many means as possible. Removing one option and expecting them to just switch to another option because one bot operator would have less trouble coding his bot is not a convincing reason for deletion in my opinion. Fram (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fram. This is a significant maintenance category, dealing with breaches of the core policy WP:V. Its existence assits bots (which would otherwise have to trawl through subcategories), and it is hidden from readers. What's not to like? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful meta-category for bots and for getting a total count of articles needing sourcing for statements. I see no harm in keeping this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can bots work with pages with unsourced statements? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, they can build list of unsourced articles by topic area, and notify editors and wikiprojects. I dunno how much of this is going on (there was a flurry of it BLP articles a while back), but even if there's not much happening now I think it would be a very bad idea to do something which impedes the ability of bots to work in this area. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Making a list from subcats is trivial in AWB, and I would imagine the other bot frameworks. It's not hard in perl. RichFarmbrough, 15:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The count is available from the progress box. RichFarmbrough, 15:43, 19 December 2010 (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:merge all. Kbdank71 17:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These are two single entry categories with limited growth potential. In addition one of these probably does not even belong in the historic tree. While the 1854 station might be historic, it has been rebuilt 4 times and from the picture it would appear that the old structure no longer exists. So, better to leave with the parent and not start splitting out by country at this point. The most populated category in the parent tree has 169 articles which is not overly large. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – category creation seems surprisingly addictive to some editors. Bots could do all this if it were thought appropriate, as it is just creating a gazillion intersections of Category:Railway stations in Foo with Category:Railway stations opened in xxxx (and declining to follow the naming convention in the former). Occuli (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Until enough articles are created to justify such a breakout.RevelationDirect (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge both and do nothing else for the apt reasons stated above. I don't think by country subcats are needed in the 'by year' category tree. Hmains (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2010 (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.
