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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Cultural conventions. Cat is an odd intersection of topics and will not be populated beyond the current two entries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 6 February 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Five days ago I started a topic about a significant reorganization of the Category:Primates at WT:CFD. With a "consensus" reached on WT:PRIMATE and no comments from WT:CFD, I'm starting this reorganization. Per the discussion on WT:PRIMATES, Category:Early hominine species should follow the subtribe name that all listed species fall into since no common name for that group technically exists. Category:Early hominids contains only named fossils, so it should be renamed to reflect this. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This brings this group of categories into a more rigorous categorization. We have no categories for "early" species anywhere, and the concept is vague and arbitrary. This category currently also includes species like Paranthropus boisei, which survived until a little over a million years ago and can hardly be considered early members of a group (Hominina) that first appeared around 5.5 million years ago. The proposed new categorization uses normal taxonomic categories, as in the rest of the tree of life category tree, and segregates the individual fossils into a subcategory. Ucucha 20:06, 6 February 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 the first, Delete the others. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. The first rename is of a category created in error by the nominator and could probably be handled outside of CFD; the term "lorids" does not cover all of the contents of the group. Deleting "prosimians" is sensible, as prosimians are no longer an accepted taxon. Unlike the recently kept Category:Monkeys, the prosimian is not exactly a deep-rooted concept in folk taxonomy either, so there is no reason to keep it. Instead, the subcategories Category:Lemurs, Category:Lorises and galagos, and Category:Tarsiers will be placed directly in Category:Primates, which will make it easier for people to find them there. The last category is a fine example of overcategorization that should be deleted; the two articles in it will do fine in Category:Fictional primates. Ucucha 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two fictional lemurs and tarsiers need to go in a "Fictional (something)s" category. I'd be happier with Zoboomafoo going into Category:Fictional lemurs and Spongmonkeys going into Category:Fictional tarsiers so those can have direct parents. But if not, then Category:Fictional primates, should it be created, would be my second choice. Regardless, the category shouldn't be deleted without figuring where those two would go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plan is to put them in Category:Fictional primates. Creating separate fictional lemur and tarsier categories with one article each wouldn't be very helpful. Ucucha 12:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need. This seems fine as is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nominator and others. Llorando (talk) 22:36, 12 February 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:Delete. While I can see why someone might want a category like this, this one has many issues. Most of the topics are well covered in the main article. While 9/11 represents a specific incident and point in time, many of the topics included cover periods of time that proceeded the incident (Category:Torture in the United States as one example). Maybe this could be recovered by a rename, but then it would likely need to be restricted to articles only that meet some very specific inclusion criteria that shows some relationship with 9/11. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether the contents of the category are perfect less than 24 hours after the category is created has no bearing on whether it is a worthwhile category. If you disagree with some of the specific items that are in the category, I encourage you to take those out of the category. And whether the topic of the category is covered in an article also has no bearing. Maurreen (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emptying a category while it is being discussed here is generally not an acceptable action. The fact that this is a new category, does not make it immune from a nomination here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about emptying or being immune. You said, "Many of the topics included cover periods of time that proceeded the incident." I thought that meant you perceive *some* of the contents as inappropriate for the category. By "some," I mean "not all." Maurreen (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Legal issues related to 9/11 or similar. I may or may not know someone who got a parking ticket a few months ago. They may or may not have contested it, and may or may not have asserted that they will continue until they're exhonerated and compensated. If all those hypotheticals have happened, that would be a post 9/11 legal issue. WFCforLife (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - support rename as suggested above - either order - the extra word sorts one of the problems SatuSuro 05:07, 10 February 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/delete all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete x4 & Rename x2. Five days ago I started a topic about a significant reorganization of the Category:Primates at WT:CFD. With a "consensus" reached on WT:PRIMATE and no comments from WT:CFD, I'm starting this reorganization. Category:Aotidae and Category:Callitrichidae need to be renamed as shown above, and Category:Atelidae, Category:Cebidae, and Category:Pitheciidae are being split per the discussion linked previously, and therefore will need to be deleted. (Should I go ahead and create the new categories they are being split into? The instructions weren't clear on this.) Category:Monkeys of Costa Rica is not needed since a WP:OC suggests list pages for these sorts of things: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." (Many of these monkeys will also be found in other South or Central American countries.) – VisionHolder « talk » 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These nominations are part of a re-categorization of New World monkeys to move them to categories that use vernacular instead of scientific names. The renames will make it easier for people unfamiliar with the scientific names to locate an article, while maintaining systematic accuracy. Ucucha 20:12, 6 February 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. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one article, nothing else for more than 18 months except a non-notable org that was deleted. The article is categorized correctly under the parent cat of Category:Jat and also under Category:Organisations based in India. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, without prejudice to re-creating it if and when there are five or more articles to include in the category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 14 February 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:keep. — ξxplicit 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Strongly mixed content for a long time, no clear criiteria for distinction. Category:Courts by country should be merged, too (someone tried to make it for court buildings, but it didn't succeedd). The title for the remaining category could by any of the three existing ones.Fuseau (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't like to see all these lumped together though some clarification is definitely needed. I see judiciary being for types of judges (e.g. County Court Judge), court systems being for types of courts (e.g. County Court), and courts being for individual courts (e.g. Central London County Court). Tim! (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per Tim!. Judiciary is about judges. Court systems are about the courts in whcih they operate. These are quite different things, though some of the articles may may cover both or otherwise overlap the boundary (or even be miscategorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 7 February 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. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for the small village Sirogojno in Serbia. There seems to be little prospect of it being expanded beyond the single article, but the category already contains one image, and the article has another 4 which could be added to the category ... so it seems best to rename and repurpose it as an images category. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree ! Best solution! --Tadija (talk) 15:37, 6 February 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: Not a notable or natural grouping; see WP:OC#PERFTabercil (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the multitude of subcategorisations under [Category:Academy_Award_winners], this is by no means overcategorisation. And if it's 'not a natural grouping' or 'not notable', why are there such longstanding awards for 'best anal scene' etc at the AVN awards, XRCO awards and so on? Why is it so notable that in each of the relevant biographies, their attainment of anal sex performance awards has been specifically referred to and/or highlighted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newstig (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar categories, such as AVN award winners, have been listified. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just like there's a category for Academy Award Winners, but there's SUBcategories for awards for makeup, acting, cinematography, etc. Plus, not all anal sex performance awardees won the AVN, they won the XRCO or XBIZ or any of the other under Category:Pornographic film awards. It's a legitimate subcategory, just as legitimate as cinematographers at the academy awards, and it has had its own awards and recognition for some time already now.Newstig (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Malik says, other such items have been set as lists, not as categories. If you created a list I wouldn't have any problems with it... a category is a different thing altogether. Tabercil (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list is for something you can't do with a category. So if you wanted to show the progress of powerlifting records, you'd do it with a list. It would show what the record was, when it happened, and who achieved it. A category alone couldn't show all that.
This is just the categorisation of those rare invidividuals who've received awards as consequence of their performance of anal sex. You can do it in a category, so do it in a category. Listing isn't needed. If you want to do a list, then YOU do it (additionally), but please then put in more information than just the membership of a category that has already been delimited and filled.Newstig 01:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this isn't even a grouping of award recipients of one particular award; it's more of a grouping of actors who have received a type or genre of award. It would be akin to Category:Acting award recipients, which would typically only hold subcategories, if it existed at all. Anyway, the normal practice is to listify award categories. I wouldn't bother doing this one though, since it's not for a specific award. I wouldn't put any porn actor award in the same class as the Academy Awards, which do have a category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:03, 8 February 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:Members of the Midnight Notes Collective[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. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Eponymous category for members of the Midnight Notes Collective, a group of academic marxist theorists with its own website]. I have sent the head article to AFD, but regardless of whether it is deleted, the collective does not need a category -- it is apparently too insignificant even to its own members to get a mention in several of three of the 4 biographical articles on members of the collective: Peter Linebaugh, Silvia Federici, and Harry Cleaver. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just created it because I figured that the placing editor forgot to create it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:17, 6 February 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 as premature if nothing else; there is currently no articles to go in category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think I know what the problem is - it looks as though I omitted the prefix Category: to make it part of the Dorabella Category. I can fix that if it's the reason for proposing it for deletion.
If that's not the problem, I'm OK with fixing the capitalisation if that makes it more acceptable. The category is specific to the Category:Dorabella Cipher (covering the Dorabella Cipher which I'm currently rewriting extensively to add more material and hopefully address the lack of encyclopedic tone). It covers symbols that are not part of the ciphered message itself but are known to be associated with it. These symbols may be attempts at creating visual mnemonics, made by the author of the cipher, Sir Edward Elgar. HTH, AncientBrit (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need that category when there is only one article in it, with little potential for expansion? Ucucha 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because to categorize the mnemonics as the Dorabella Cipher is incorrect. They are not part of the ciphered note but they do appear on the same page of an exercise book belonging to Sir Edward Elgar, in which he wrote out several maps of symbols to letters along with test encryptions, and the four unusual symbols not seen elsewhere to date (but the wealth of materials in the various collections has yet to be fully explored, so that is unsurprising).
The cipher-related symbols are worthy of a separate category because they are related to the Dorabella Cipher but are not part of the ciphered note. (The current Dorabella Cipher article is in the process of being rewritten to considerably extend and expand it and notes on the visual mnemonics form part of that expansion).
The same cipher symbols used in the Dorabella Cipher appear in the margin of a programme of music for a Liszt concert that took place 11 years prior to the creation of the ciphered note, but the message (or more likely a comment) does not appear to follow the same encryption system. The visual mnemonics most likely describe a mapping convention of cipher symbols to a regular (but 24 character) alphabet, and different maps were almost certainly used for the two known examples of the cipher's use.
For now we have too little information on the Liszt fragment so it is probably not deserving of a separate article just yet. I've managed to track down the first person to attempt a decryption of that example in the 1970s and he apparently has a book's worth of material on the cipher system that he plans to publish.
Those visual mnemonics (aka "hairy footballs") will have a subsection devoted to them in the Dorabella Cipher article (for now) and will utilize stylized graphics to clarify their component parts. The graphics have already been created and uploaded and need to be categorized. No existing category describes them.
The cipher is apparently something that Elgar used throughout a period extending from at least 1886 to the 1920s. It is likely that more examples await discovery and so there is plenty of potential for expansion.
What would you suggest as an alternative approach? AncientBrit (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So this is to be an image category? Ucucha 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - the set of images has little use (that I know of) outside Elgar's experiments in cryptography. If there was any other interpretation that could be placed upon them (if they represented something else, such as a political movement or an artistic style, or if others had used them for some purpose), then the answer would be Yes. But as they stand, unless something comes to light in the future, I'd have to say No. The guidance I received from the Wikimedia Help desk was - where necessary - to create categories in the hierarchy History of cryptography | Uncracked codes and ciphers | Dorabella Cipher | Cipher-Related Symbols. The first three categories match those applied in Wikipedia. Essentially I'm trying to be consistent with existing categorization.
If it helps, the mnemonic indicates the mapping of a set of eight triplets of symbols to a regular mapping of a reduced alphabet. There are four sets of three of what might be called bristles on the circular part of the image (facing either inward or outward), and four sets on the arms of a cross inside the circle, facing either clockwise or anticlockwise.
The orientation of the bristling triplets indicates whether a sequence of symbols to letters is to be mapped in the order A,B,C... or C,B,A...
If you look at the images for M2 and M3 in DoraBella_Cipher_related_graphics.gif, they are the inverse of each other. Thus one maps to a regular progression of an alphabet as A,B,C;D,E,F...X,Y,Z while the other maps to a progression that is reversed in threes: C,B,A;F,E,D...Z,Y,X. So they are keys rather than simply images. Elgar was fond of doodling on just about every document and one of these mnemonics could be placed in some proximity to a ciphered note (perhaps even on the back of an envelope) and used to inform a decryptor of the method of mapping to be used, without necessarily arousing suspicion.
I don't know whether that helps clarify things. AncientBrit (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To move things forward I propose editing the entry to correct the omission of "Category:" from the entry. If that turns out to be a miss-step it can of course be reverted, but I expect that it will remove the entry from the list of Uncategorized categories. AncientBrit (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was already categorised; I added categories before nominating it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But until I corrected my typing error it did not belong to the one category that it should definitely belong to: Category:Dorabella Cipher. AncientBrit (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I sat on the fence when I nominated this, but the discussion above shows no purpose for the category. If images are uploaded for the symbols, then they would belong in a specific category such as Category:DoraBella Cipher symbols. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I uploaded a separate graphic that satisfies that requirement (it shows the 24 cipher symbols mapped to an alphabet but it obviously isn't correctly categorized yet). Again, it's not the ciphered note, nor is it part of the visual mnemonics. AncientBrit (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the explanations above were entertaining and interesting, they do make it clear to me what articles would be placed in this category. It seems that there are no article which will fit into this category, so I move to delete. Ucucha 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article yet that covers the mnemonic symbols because I have yet to finish creating it. The first step was to create the stylized graphics for the mnemonics and upload them, the next step was to create the categories into which they would be placed. The final step is to create the article which will require them. That is under way in my sandbox as part of the current edit of the Dorabella Cipher; it will be separated out eventually but for now I have it embedded in the modified original article. The work is a collaboration between at least two people in different time zones with other priorities to address, so things are understandably not proceeding swiftly.
As I noted earlier, the only reason the entry appeared to be uncategorized was because I omitted the text "Category:" in the category "Dorabella Cipher". I have since corrected that error, and now the Cipher-Related Symbols category comes under Dorabella Cipher category as it was originally intended to, so it is now correctly categorized.
As I also explained, the mnemonic symbols do not belong under the category Dorabella Cipher Symbols - they are not included in the cipher and they are NOT cipher symbols. They are however cipher-related, specifically and exclusively to the Dorabella Cipher, by virtue of appearing on the same page as the cipher symbols in an exercise book. They are visual aids to mapping, not cipher symbols. If you examine the in-progress entry in my sandbox you will see the context. However, to see the original cipher symbols in use in the note you will need to look at the Wikipedia article Dorabella Cipher, since DASHBot recently deleted the graphic showing the ciphered note per policy (non-free graphics may only be included in articles and not in sandboxes).
The cipher symbols and the visual mnemonics are not the same.
I could provide an analogy. There are traffic signs showing destinations, and there are direction arrows that may accompany the signs. The arrows are not the destinations but they are related to them - they tell drivers in which direction to head in order to reach the destination. The two require different categories - one for the destinations, one for the direction arrows. In this instance, unlike the arrows, the mnemonic symbols do not have any other function or application; they have only been found so far on the same page of the exercise book that contains Elgar's experiments with the cipher. Does that help clarify the situation? I know the subject is a little esoteric (well, all right, a lot) but there is a logic to it. AncientBrit (talk) 01:15, 8 February 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 encountered this uncategorised category, and crudely added it to Category:Animals. There are some other oddball categories in there such as Category:Rolling animals, so maybe this one is an appropriate addition, but it seems a little odd to me so I thought I'd bring it here to see whether other editors think it's appropriate. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. ok so that one was my responsibility. i only just started it because i was looking for a list of gliding animals and couldn't find one. it seems interesting to me, i have sure checked out Category:Rolling animals before, i can only assume other people find it interesting to find out what kind of animals have this peculiar form of locomotion. while everyone knows about flying creatures, gliding seems to have evolved in a much larger individual cases, so this might provide a better understanding of evolution. this seems surely encyclopedic to me (in contrast to black and white birds :)). perhaps it's more appropriately done by expanding the gliding section in flying and gliding animals though.· Lygophilehasspoken 15:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. This is an important characteristic of these animals, although I am not quite convinced that it is defining enough for a category. (Incidentally, the category is missing several gliding animals, like the colugos, Volaticotherium, Petauroides, Acrobates, and extinct eomyid and glirid rodents.) I would rather delete the rolling category, which is much more poorly defined and probably less defining. Ucucha 20:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the categories groups by a rather clear defining characteristic for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 9 February 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:Reverse merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge as obvious duplicate. I would actually prefer a reverse merge, but the convention of Category:Academics by university is that the national sub-categories be named "Faculty by university in country". This convention is imperfectly observed, and one way or another some standardisation is needed ... but I suggest that any change to the convention is better addressed by a wider group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a convention as Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom doesn't follow it anywhere. I would suggest that instead it follows local usage: faculty in the States, academics in the UK, and whatever is customary in Africa (which will vary by country). (Nigeria ditched anything British asap and embraced the US, so faculty is probably preferable.) The head category is Category:Academics. Occuli (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Academics" (plural noun) is perfectly acceptable in the U.S. as a term for scholars attached to academic instututions and learned societies; however, "academics" (singular noun) is also a widely used term for studies in general, especially at the university-level, a synonym for "scholastics." Thus "faculty" (common noun) has been preferred, but it too is imperfect, as various institutions use "Faculty" (proper noun) to refer to what other institutions term a "Department," "Division," "School," or "College." "Academicians" is also in use. And I wish editors would not attribute every instance of naming difference as the work of clumsy and/or imperialistic Americans. Sometimes, as with "drinking establishments" or "educational institutions" the clumsy construction is a good faith attempt to identify a suitable neutral term.- choster (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether that gripe about alleged references to "clumsy and/or imperialistic Americans" came from, but I neither said nor intended any such thing, and I can't read anything like that into Occuli's comment. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the Nigerian position is an understandable reaction to the clumsy and imperialistic British. (I think all Choster's comments re faculty etc apply also in academia in the UK.) Occuli (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We use "academics" for general articles about people, and "faculty of..." for people associated with specific institutions. In this case that would make for a reverse merge. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was a Professor in a Nigerian university for 5 years from 1976 to 1981, external examiner in two others and a visitor to several other universities. I recall little of "Nigeria ditched anything British asap" at that time and none from in universities, although while I was there they ditched the Westminster system of the federal government for a US-like system of government. The system of "external examiners" was one British university practice that was still going strong then. I was an academic in the Department of Chemistry of the Faculty of Science - British use. It may have changed but I would want evidence. --Bduke(Discussion) 04:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting discussion above, but this is not actually the wider discussion on renaming which I suggested (maybe foolishly) would be a good idea for the future. Whatever the best name for this category, the worst outcome is to retain two categories with the same purpose ... so please could we try to decide which direction to merge in this case? Otherwise the closing admin is going to have to toss a coin. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 7 February 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations to organisations. I acknowledge that this type of change is proscribed against by #1, but I think we can probably justify making this change under #4—to conform with the applicable parent categories and everything in them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if this is the wrong place to comment, but I object to the proposed renamings of the anarchist categories as it would introduce unwelcome inconsistencies with the rest of Category:Anarchist organizations by country. Skomorokh 09:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all – surely anarchists are not going to object either way. Occuli (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as the proposed names use proper English. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as the proposed names use improper English properly. Ucucha 20:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all according to British (and Commonwealth) spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to standardise UK spelling. Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 9 February 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:keep. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The category is far too specific. Proof of this is the fact that it contains a single article. In any case, there's the more general (and already specific enough) category Category:Filipino people with disabilities. --uKER (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Category not needed for single article. Maurreen (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the broader parent structure by nation. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 9 February 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:no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Although it is widely believed otherwise "ATA", the disk interface standard, really stands for "AT Attachment"; the "AT" there is not an abbreviation for anything. This is well described in the main article for the category. "AT Attachment" complies with the last bullet under "General naming conventions" at WP:NCCAT, the current name does not. I am aware of the standard article naming conventions that sometimes lead us to pick commonly (ab)used names insteads of correct ones, but under the "Common names" section of WP:UCN, deference is made to "the usage of reliable sources", and the most reliable sources here are the relevant standards documents. Those use "AT Attachment" and never "Advanced Technology Attachment". Jeh (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not Integrated Drive Electronics instead? Note: If the choice is between the current name and the nom's suggestion, I support the nom's suggestion. Since the current name does not seem like it is ever used. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "IDE" never appeared in the ATA standards that I can find, except perhaps in ATA-1. It was a name used by Western Digital and is much descriptive of the nature of the drive as of the interface. "EIDE" is a WD coinage also. Parallel ATA#History and terminology goes into all of this. Jeh (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's the point. It's not an abbreviation, so that guideline doesn't apply. "Advanced Technology Attachment" is simply wrong. As the main article makes clear, and as confirmed by the documents from the standards committee, the full name really is just "AT Attachment". Jeh (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent to Category:Parallel ATA (which is where most of the contents here should be moved) and Category:Serial ATA. Those are the real names that are the common use and well know. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment *sigh* But "AT Attachment" is the real name. Even though many people seem to think it's an abbreviation for something, it isn't. I think it is wrong for Wikipedia to promote error on the basis of "common use," particularly in technical fields. Creating a "Parallel ATA" category is a separate issue. Jeh (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While "AT Attachment" may be the correct name, the common name is ATA. That can not be used in a category as it is ambiguous. So the question is which is the going to be the best going forward. I guess I would need to be convinced that the current name should not be used. Given how both the current name and the proposed name are not know to the average reader since ATA is what is used, I'm not convinced that changing the name would help anything. While you say that it is wrong, I'll note that it returns 116,000 google hits. So clearly it is in use, incorrect or not. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"AT Attachment" returns 250,000 google hits, nearly twice as many. Of course some of those will be accidental word pairings. {"AT Attachment" drive} and {"Advanced Technology Attachment" drive} return almost identical numbers of hits... which of course reflect a lot of the same pages. Is there a good argument for not deferring to the people who created it and picked the name? In terms of "helping", I hate to see anything on WP being used as a reference for that-which-is-not-so. Jeh (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME says "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." For something like a technical standard the most reliable sources are the standards docs themselves (which indeed are referenced in the article). WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions does not disagree: "Particularly for technical subjects, use words and phrases which exist in reliable sources..." Other sources referenced in the article agree that "AT Attachment" is the correct and complete name. Jeh (talk) 01:28, 7 February 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Way too broad. Ben (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too broad, too vague, too subjective. Take your pick. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not subjective. If a person declares their adherence to a religion and they are a scientist they can be included in this cat. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some would argue that mere token adherence to a particular religion doesn't make one "religious". Are you saying scientist who is not an atheist would therefore be in the category? Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all but a few exceptional cases even the narrower categories you suggested will be of no use, in the same sense that Category:Vegetarian scientists or Category:Scientists with red hair would be of no use. That is, religion is not a definitive attribute of a scientist. Recently the 'Religion' attribute was removed from Template:Infobox scientist for the same reason. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like Category:Jewish scientists for the same reasons, but in this case I can see an argument for it: Jew has way more than a religious meaning. A classic example of this is Einstein, who can be identified as Jewish but certainly not in the religious sense. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an ethnic association more significant than a religious one? I mean that seems to be a clear judgment, hence Category:Romani scientists, but I wonder about the justification. Is it that it's less contentious who is/isn't "Jewish" or "Romani", that seems debatable, or that there are clearer associations by ethnicity? (Also seems debatable as there are societies like Christians in Science)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say an ethnic association was more significant than a religious one, I said I see the argument (valid or not). There does seem to be general acceptance of ethnic (eg. Category:Jewish scientists) / national (eg. Category:Australian scientists) / etc. categories, and again, I don't like these, but I can see arguments for them that are good enough that I don't worry about them. That's not worth getting into though, since we've wandered well into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this this category has been discussed and deleted before, where there was an overwhelming consensus to delete. I presume many of the same reasons still apply, and the discussion is likely worth checking out. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted category per WP:CFD#G4. Otherwise 'Delete as a predominantly trivial intersection; no doubt there are a few exceptional cases where the intersection is non-trivial, but any such category will inevitably be populated with scientists whose religious beliefs and/or observance have no bearing on their scientific work. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article Creator and in light of above comments. Amen... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:30, 9 February 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:Electric vehicles in protected areas[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This appears to be for US park areas that utilize electric vehicles. I don't see that as being defining for the protected areas and is probably OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like the name of the cat is a possible article name. The cat contents are articles that may have a mere mention of elec vehicles but that is not a reason to create this cat and shove them in it. The cat name does not give a clear indication or what subset of articles should be included. Come back in the year 2100 and see if such a cat is justified! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. The use of electric vehicles is not a defining characteristic of the protected areas. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 7 February 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category collecting three pages from three namespaces with little potential for expansion. Skomorokh 00:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even this category's main article is a redirect to a section of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 6 February 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. NW(Talk) 17:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a proper noun. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename (criteria #2, capitalization fix). Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:28, 6 February 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:Upmerge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article and a subcategory (itself with four articles.) This can be upmerged to its parent and the article put into any relevant categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two images as well. Still, this can be upmerged. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 6 February 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.
