Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 21

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

March 21[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one article in it is of relevance and it is already suitable categorised. While there may be articles that could potentially be written the could populate this category, it should be deleted for the time being. See also the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand#St_John_of_God_Halswell. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a category that has previously had more pages in it and based on media reports could easily have more again. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know of a church that was removed from it (hmm, was it me?). There certainly is a need for a Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand article and the only relevant article in the category, namely Sexual abuse scandal at Marylands School, Christchurch, could even be merged into such an article. Either way, under WP:SMALLCAT it could be deleted except that it happens to be part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no objection to recreating later if there are more articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice against recreating the category. Categories like this invite unjustified categorization and are likely to lead to BLP rules violations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Converts to Atheism 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: delete, and a {{trout}} for the user who emptied it out of process. The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Converts to Atheism from Eastern Orthodoxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is surely an inappropriate category. Atheism is not a religion in the sense that Eastern orthodoxy is. There is no formal means for "converting" to atheism, and it has no prescribed set of beliefs and practice. This category, which implies that atheism is itself a religion, has no place in an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created earlier today, and several articles were moved to it from Category:Former Eastern Orthodox Christians. Since the former category was more appropriate, I reverted the moves. RolandR (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to do that (though I don't advise it), you may as well just leave the category empty and wait for it to be deleted as an empty category 4 days later. Otherwise someone here is going to show up with a big fat fish and give you a smack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but unhappy about category being emptied. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while Atheism is a belief system, it is not a formal religion. There could in theory be atheistic religions, but atheism itself can no more be converted to than "materialism" or "Jacksonianism" (and the latter might be a bad example).John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Stars by spectral type[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 F-type stars. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Version A[edit]
Version B[edit]
Discussion (Stars by spectral type)[edit]
  • Either version is fine by me, but the category tree should either use the "X-Type" or "Type-X" convention. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common usage among professional astronomers is to refer to a star as a "X-Type"...so if you're fine with that, why did you create this proposal? I don't understand the problem with the current convention.AstroCog (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the categories use "X-Type" and some of them use "Type-X". I believe the nominator is suggesting that we change to one format or the other and not have a mix of both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment either way, the other should exist as category redirects. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I agree with AstroCog. Of the two, "X-Type stars" is marginally preferable as the more common form in Google scholar. For example, ["A-Type" star] gets 276,000 ghits whereas ["Type-A" star] gets 64,100. But I'm not religious about it. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the first option. In Category:Star types, the articles use the 'X-Type' variant (eg O-type main sequence star). Oculi (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the first option. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • X-Type stars is more useful. We also use that format for S-type asteroids, etc. -- Kheider (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using version A - as "FOO-type stars" is the standard naming convention (i.e. compare adsabs title search results for "-type" && "stars" vs. "type-" && "stars": 9,558 vs. 32, and most of the 32 are type-FOO supernovae!). Consistency with asteroid names is a nice bonus too. -- Tom.Reding (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

TCNJ football categories[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. The current name is a neologism, and the TCNJ name fits the pattern of the category more than the spelled-out version,--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Subgiant stars[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Subgiant stars to Category:Subgiants
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Subgiant (Article moved in 2006.) and every non-stub category uses the "FOO-type subgiants" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Gas giants[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gas giant planets to Category:Gas giants
Propose renaming Category:Gas giant planets in the habitable zone to Category:Gas giants in the habitable zone
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is Gas giant. (Article wasn't moved in the last year.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually before looking the discussion, my first reaction was that it may be about the giant gas fields. I don't think that I am so extraordinary person to be the only one to be confused. Support creating Category:Giant planets with subcategories per 70.24.248.7. Oppose renaming per potential confusion. Beagel (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in Google news [3], it is clear that "gas giants" can refer to oil and gas companies. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per 70.24.248.7. — Tom.Reding t
     c     16:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The word "planets" needs to be included in the name to avoid ambiguity with energy companies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er.. a businessman might be looking at Jupiter and think "Yay.. I can now go to a category about petroleum corporations"? Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kepler (spacecraft)[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 Category:Kepler mission to Category:Kepler (spacecraft) & Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by Kepler (spacecraft). Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kepler mission to Category:Kepler (spacecraft) or Category:Kepler Mission
Propose renaming Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler (spacecraft) or Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler Mission
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is Kepler (spacecraft) (Article wasn't moved in the last year.), but the program in which this spacecraft is used is called Kepler Mission. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bright giant stars[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bright giant stars to Category:Bright giants
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Bright giant (article never moved) and every subcategories of it use the "FOO-type bright giants" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hypergiant stars[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hypergiant stars to Category:Hypergiants
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Hypergiant. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Common envelope binaries[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:Common envelope binary stars. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Common envelope binaries to Category:Contact binaries Category:Common envelopes
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Contact binary Common envelope. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Semiregular variables[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Semiregular variables to Category:Semiregular variable stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Semiregular variable star. (Article was never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Astronomy images[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 on proposed rename. It appears that there would be a consensus to rename the other sub-categories of Category:Astronomy images to the "Images of Foo" format, but since they have not been tagged that woukd require a separate nomination. Editors should feel free to start that discussion immediately, if they wish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images of moons to Category:Moon images
Propose renaming Category:Images of nebulae to Category:Nebula images
Nominator's rationale: Every sister category in Category:Astronomy images (except "Astronomy featured pictures‎") use the "FOO images format". Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure... maybe the convention should be the other way around, as 'Moon images' can be confused with images of the Moon, and not generic moons. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The category for the Moon is Category:Lunar images. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't solve your ambiguous naming method. Someone will have to end up policing that category. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Moon images" sounds like images of the Moon. Not sure what it should be, but even if there's a category called "Lunar images" it still doesn't get around the fact that "Moon images" implies images of the Moon. Not even sure why this being proposed. There's nothing confusing about "Images of moons". If this is just some compulsive effort to make everything look the same, then I'm not sure what to suggest.AstroCog (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose it is impossible to determine the contents of "Moon images", are these images of THE MOON (the thing orbitting the Earth) or any moon ? 70.24.248.7 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer rename of other categories to Images of foos There are actually three different conventions going on here, as we have Category: Planetary images and the subcategories of Category:Solar System images (which is itself misnamed, as it contains images of objects in the solar system) are also both adjectival. One presumes that the notion of a category of "nebulous" or "nebular" or "stellar" images couldn't be created with a straight face. Whatever we pick, some two-thirds of the categories are going to need renaming, not that there are exactly huge numbers involved. I think the "images of" convention is the least awkward and therefore would propose keeping the two nominated as is, and making the following renames and changes:
I haven't tagged these but if there is any support for this from anyone else I will go and do that. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Plerions[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:Pulsar wind nebulae.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plerions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#SMALL. I would say triple upmerge, but the sole article is already in these categories. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either populate or delete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Accretion-powered pulsars[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. The ones in the category are X-ray pulsars. It is not clear whether SWIFT J1756.9-2508 is, and if it is not, then the subcategory Category:Accreting millisecond pulsars should be removed from this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Accretion-powered pulsars to Category:X-ray pulsars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is X-ray pulsar. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it should be kept around as a category redirect 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not all X-ray pulsars are accretion powered. Ruslik_Zero 10:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then someone should make the necessary changes to the article as it begins with "X-ray pulsars or accretion-powered pulsars", which means "X-ray pulsars" = "Accretion-powered pulsars". Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Luminous blue variable stars[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: withdraw nomination. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Luminous blue variable stars to Category:Luminous blue variables
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Luminous blue variable. (Article was never moved) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and the article should probably be renamed to Luminous blue variable star, as "luminous blue variable" refer to variable stars and not some other type of variables. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gamma Cassiopeiae variables[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gamma Cassiopeiae variables to Category:Shell stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Shell star. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - new name seems...off, somehow, but nothing enough to oppose a C2D - The Bushranger One ping only 17:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this was one of the less vague noms. Google points to astronomical entries as well so I guess it's okay-Lenticel (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rye Country Day School alumni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rye Country Day School alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I believe only Edward Albee and Barbara Bush have a verifiable association with RCDS. The rest or either unverified, uncited, or have simply had RCDS inserted into their articles. Two items are hardly a reason to created a category, Wlmg (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but purge. Categorising people by the school at which they were educated is an established pattern, and there are many other small categories in both the parent Category:Alumni by high school in New York and the grandparent Category:Alumni by high school in the United States. As such, this category meets WP:SMALLCAT ... but the current inclusion criteria are "people near to Rye Country Day School", which is far too loose -- living near a school is not in any way defining. (I can see 4 schools from my house, and there are more over the hills, but I have nothing to do with any of them).
    The category should be redefined to include only the alumni of the school, and purged on any biographies which do not verifiably meet that criterion. If that leaves it empty, then speedy delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – obviously it should be restricted to alumni, per its name. It wasn't particularly difficult to source most of the alleged alumni (attendance at a school not being a controversial claim) and no doubt there are others with articles. Oculi (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup Don't accept BHG's premise that any podunk school gets it's own category but, even if purged, this one would likely be able to reach 5 articles based on a quick Google search. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but limit to alumni. How near is near? That is a POV issue. Most high schools have an article, and that leads to a list of notable alumni and almost inevitably to a category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The definition of alumni is clear enough as inclusion criteria. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep alumni by school is a standard category scheme, so only having a few entries is not justification for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cataclysmic variables[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cataclysmic variables to Category:Cataclysmic variable stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Cataclysmic variable star. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:DQ Herculis variables[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 as nominated. While "Polars" has uncertainty, "Intermediate polars" does not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename - but would Category:Intermediate polar stars or Category:Intermediate polar binary stars work? "Intermedate polar" sounds just a little ambiguous. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AM Canum Venaticorum variables[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; revisit if main article is moved. I note no RM has been initiated. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:AM Canum Venaticorum variables to Category:AM CVn stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is AM CVn star. (Article was moved in 2008) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Symbiotic variables[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Symbiotic variables to Category:Symbiotic novae
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Symbiotic nova. (Main article was moved in 2008). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Luminous Red Novae[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Luminous Red Novae to Category:Luminous red novae
Nominator's rationale: Correct the capitalisation of the category after Luminous red nova. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs remixed by R. Kelly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs remixed by R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_2#Category:Songs_remixed_by_Justice —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I said on the last nomination, I am wary enough about producer categories as often the person credited as "producer" wasn't actually the true producer of a song, but the CEO of the record company, the artist, the money man etc; also linking redirects to producer (and remixers as is contained in the category) is misleading. That's not to say some of these categories wouldn't make a nice article where in depth explanations are possible --Richhoncho (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The question here is "is the remixer of the song a central characteristic of the song" I would say no, it is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1889 establishments in the United States[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. expanded rationale to follow --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination Consideration of splitting Category:1889 establishments in the United States either by more specific type or by more specific locality.
  • Nominator's rationale. This category has 79 entries, and without any effort it will soon be well over 100. I was wondering if people thought it was worth splitting, and more importantly if it was felt that the better way to split the category would be by states, or by the type of thing established.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator, you really need to browse the establishment hierarchy to gain at least a basic understanding of how it is currently organized. The nomination really doesn't make sense, at all. __meco (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created a sizeable portion of the category hierarchy. At present we have a system of different types of establishments by year (educational institutions, government agencies, political parties, companies, populated places, musical groups) and we have the establishment by country by year tree. My question is if we decide to split country cats that get too large (with the US category will be if even haphazardly used) should we further divide by geography, or should we create categories like Category:Companies established in the United States in 1889 and Category:Educational institutions established in the United States in 1889.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing special about 1889 per se, it is just the year I decided to do a categorizing of everything by country organized for. Some would argue that a nomination of every year from 1880 on might be better, but this is just an exploratory nomination. Splitting out new categories can actually be done without seeking consensus, but I figured that we need a consensus on how and if we will split out this category. Anyway, I really do not know which potential method of splitting would be better. In theory both could be done, but I do not find that course advisable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The recently created Category:1889 establishments in Hawaii is not related to this discussion because in 1889 Hawaii was not part of the United States but an independent nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suspect that across this entire tree subcategories will be created as needed. There is nothing magical about 100, or 70 or 200 entries that means we need to do anything. If you look in the area of years like 2000 you will see some logical splitting happening. I only found a few categories by state (1) and territory (2) so it is not clear if there is support for that breakout at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might some merit in U.S. state specific categories, which I think would be better than breaking it down by type of establishment. Tim! (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having now realized that this is an exploratory nomination and that nominator is aware of structure of the hierarchy, I will address this more detailed. I initiated the the establishment by locations part of the establishments by year hierarchy. I haven't myself experienced a need for a more detailed subdivision than country-level, although breaking it down by US states would be a possibility for which we see precedents throughout the Wikipedia categories in general. I'm also unsure about making cross-linking between location and type, e.g. Category:Organizations established in Sweden in 1990. __meco (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide if >200 At that point, you have to go between more than one page to see all the entries. The 200 standard (much like my version of Smallcat being <5) is mine alone but I think it's a logical point to at least question if a cat is getting too large. Until then, I think a state breakdown is premature.::RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it sets an ambiguous precedent. You start refining Category:1979 establishments in the United States, creating Category:Companies established in the United States in 1979 and Category:Organizations established in the United States in 1979. This establishes the new hierarchy which anyone will now feel free to populate, and the next thing you'll be seeing Category:Companies established in Portugal in 1895 emptying out the one article that was existing in Category:1895 establishments in Portugal. __meco (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The point being made is that at some point a serious look at splitting is needed. No one is saying that categories can not be larger then 200 entries. Having gone through a large number of building categories, and making mistakes along the way, I learned that a fixed guideline is not going to work. Due to the distribution of articles, you may have ample material for 10 or 20 subcategories for 1995. However if you take that back to, say 1586, you may wind up with none or one. The question is how do you know when to stop? We run into this all of the time with any series categories. In well populated trees you have thousands of articles to look at to find material for subcategories. So population can affect how this works. With large trees, the creation of subcategories can be hit or miss across centuries. You could have 10 articles for a subcategory in one year and none in the next. Also we need to remember the impact of decisions on populating of sub categories. If I start at 1901 moving up in years splitting out establishments into states, and someone starts at 2000 moving to lower years splitting out by establishment type, what happens when we meet? They are not going to want to look in 50 catteries to populate by type trees and it is not likely that I'm going to want to look into 10 or 20 categories to add these to the by state categories. So this is not a simple issue. Also what is the purpose of subcategories? Is it to organize material by topic or to make it easier for navigation or something else? In this example, which is better, by state or by type or is this an unanswerable question? Not saying I have answers, but clearly there are questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't decipher your post very well, I'm afraid. That said, I've been pondering strategies for developing and maintaining these chronological hierarchies for a long time. A couple of suggestions might be the following:
  1. Fortify WikiProject Years as the central forum venue for these problems and challenges.
  2. Develop "break-off limit" (a better name may be suggested) as an instrumental and actionable entity when it comes to making rules for when to create breakout categories, and what to name these.
  1. Populate all years from 1800 forward,
  2. Before 1800 populate decades,
  3. If the 1790s category gets to 100 articles, categories for 1791 through 1799 can be created,
  4. The same thing can be done to the 1780s category only after the 1790s category has been disseminated, and so on for earlier decades (i.e. even if there happens to be 150 articles in the 1730s category, it cannot be subdivided before all decades higher have been,
  5. Use the same principle to establish a subdivision delimeter for centuries, i.e. categorize by centuries only until 100 articles exist.
  6. And millennia
  1. Establish a consensus for how the backbone of these hierarchies shall be structured uniformly across the entire category hierarchy. This should dictate that by years, by decades, by centuries and by millennia should always be in place.
  1. Develop templates that can enforce the break-off limits, so that an error or warning message appears if someone appears to violate the creation rules. These templates could possibly also transclude given parameters that were given in a set format on a default sub-page of either the template or the top parent of that particular hierarchy scheme.
These are some thought, perhaps not perfectly explained. __meco (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like your guideliness and wish they were enforcable. I actually think that Wikipedia's vague, it depends, look at the individual situation, and we'll all have a consensus-building group hug nonsense with category size is counter-productive. Not having concrete numbers for what articles are too small or what ones are large enough that splitting is warranted is misguided. Such vagueness leads to good faith category clutter that takes far more time to clean up than it takes to create.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to implement a system which prevents categories like Category:544 BC establishments in Tajikistan from being created. How many articles is likely to go into that one? __meco (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably only the one, but this avoids category clutter at the article page. Otherwise you need a category "BC establishments in Tajikistan", and one for "6th century BC creations in Asia", and one for "544 BC", and so on. Otherwise there is no logical way to get from the category:544 BC to this specific one. I'm currently creating and populating the establishment and disestablishment categories (the latter being nearly non-existent, but the logical extension of the former), so they will form a logical full set with at the outsides some near-empty groups and in the centre (i.e. recent years, English speaking countries,...) more densely inhabited cats. This creates IMO less problems than artificial rules of which centuries get year cats, which get decade cats and which get century cats. (oh, and keep the US cat under discussion as is, please). Fram (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to categories like the 1790s since they generally don't aid navigation and when you get to the century categories, these tend to not be easily classified correctly into a century. Also categories like the 1700s are inherently ambiguous. I see no reason to group years in categories smaller then a century! Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this CfD gets closed and a proper RfC opened, since this is a much more general discussion, with ideas for splitting categories, grouping others together, abandoning the decade level, and so on. This needs wider input and a better format to get this thing structured and useful. Fram (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And today Tim! (talk · contribs) even created the breakout hierarchy Category:Establishments in London by year and began moving articles into it. This is moving ahead in a very disorderly fashion. __meco (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also have Category:509 BC establishments in Italy. I think rule #1 we need to have is "do not apply country categories in an anachronistic fashion." I would say "for cases of pre-1500 by year establishment there is no reason to put the article in any category other than Category:509 BC establishments until we determine that that category is large enough to justify subdividing in some way." The same goes for Category:544 BC establishments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At an absolute minimum the 544 BC category mentioned above ought to be Category:544 BC establishments in Persia since that is the place designation that applied at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. A case can be made to also have the contemporary country (but that is often impossible or very impractical), but the current country is relevant and what most people would be looking for. Otherwise these categories will get extremely fragmented and hard to navigate, with e.g. instead of Italy or Germany a myriad of countries in the Middle Ages. You would need to locate The King's School, Canterbury in "establishments in the Kingdom of Kent" instead of establishments in England. Not very practical. Similarly, can you tell me in what country the Republic of Venice was established? In itself, in Italy, in the Byzantine Empire...? It is already a part of Category:Byzantine Empire successor states in Italy, so that category would have to go as well presumably, since it never was in Italy?
    • The history of a current country is shaped by what happened in its territory over the centuries, and these categories reflect this. When you learn national history at school, it doesn't start at the official independence date of your country with its current name, you go back to the prehistory if possible. There are thousands of articles waiting to populate these categories, which will form a fairly dense and complete tapestry of what happened in many countries, and will create a good, linear navigation scheme across whole groups of articles where it is until now very randomly applied and not of much use. The suggestions to remove either the country or the year from the categorization scheme for the outliers (the cats with few entries) means that the navigation breaks down at these points, which is making it harder for the readers for no good reason (only, as far as I can see, a philosophical or stylistical one, a kind of horror vacui which opposes nearly empty categories). As long as a system is logical and practical, there is no reason to abandon it at the extremes, as long as these extremes are not in some way harmful. I can't see the actual harm done by "544 BC in Tajikistan", even if it is the only page in BC Tajikistan. Fram (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tajikstan is very little shaped by what happened in the area before AD 500. Imposing Category:1750 establishments in Poland on events in Silesia in that year because it is today part of Poland is a case of horrible historical inaccuracy because Silesia was a heavily German area where the vast majority of the population was expelled after World War II, and was not part of Poland, which was a clearly functioning country at that time (it had in the past been part of Poland, but that is another story entirely). The same issues come up in trying to use Pakistan in 1925. There is no reason that everything needs to be categorized by where it was established, and thus there is no reason to subdivide Category:544 BC establishments when it only has one entry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, discussing all of this here has limited benefit due to the accidental location of this discussion. We should establish an appropriate dedicated forum for these discussions. I suggest it should be under he auspices of WikiProject Years or WikiProject Categories, or ideally both. I.e. we could establish a cross-WikiProject work-group between those two to coordinate these sorts of deliberations. __meco (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See a similar nomination by same nominator at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 5#Category:1537 establishments by country. __meco (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Long Island highways[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Long Island highways to Category:Roads on Long Island
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the parent category, Category:Roads in New York, and per Wikipedia:Category names#Manufactured objects (substituting "on" for "in" since the landform in question is an island). – TMF 15:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support purely on a consistency basis. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States free speech case law[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:United States Free Speech Clause case law. Also taking into account the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_20#US_Xth_Amendment_case_law for this closure. - jc37 01:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States free speech case law to Category:United States First Amendment free speech case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name change is necessary to make clear that this category includes cases interpreting and applying the clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and not just any case that deals with something that some Wikipedian has determined to involve the freedom of speech in the abstract sense. It currently contains only those cases. This is an exception to the general rule that such categories should be titled "X Clause case law" because there is some ambiguity about whether the speech and press clauses are separate. And because the phrase "Free Speech Clause" is not used as commonly as others such as the "Double Jeopardy Clause." While the Supreme Court has never really given effect to the Press Clause as independent (i.e. given special speech rights to the press that do not apply to everyone), this preserves the ability of the category to include press clause cases (should any exist). Savidan 14:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now support RevelationDirect's alternate name of "Free Speech Clause case law." Savidan 18:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support/Weak Alternate Rename Proposed name is better than the current one but, ultimately, Category:Free Speech Clause case law is where this should end up. (Unfortunately, Free Speech Clause is just a redirect at this point.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not entirely opposed to support this alternate name. I did not propose that only because no such consensus had emerged in the article-space. Savidan 13:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The category name is clear. However for consistency what I ahve said on recent discussions, it should be Category:United States free speech clause case law. The inclusion of US is important as other countries will have free sppech clauses in theri constitutions. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category name is currently not clear. It does not make clear that it only contains constitutional, First Amendment cases. As for other countries, the question is not whether they have free speech, but whether the phrase "Free Speech Clause" would be ambiguous as to whether it refers to the US First Amendment or some clause of some other constitution. Savidan 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Alternate Rename Since I'm advocating naming a category after a non-existant article that I think should exist (a dangerous proposition to be sure), I can hardly claim the category name needs to follow the naming convention of the missing article. I'm fine with Category:United States Free Speech Clause case law (Same as your suggestiong with punctuation changes.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A bit too narrow of a construction. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The "broader" construction is a much bigger cause for concern. Wikipedians should not be in the business of making subjective judgments about which cases involve the freedom of speech in the abstract sense. In contrast, it is objectively categorizable whether a case interpreted and applied the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States constitution. Savidan 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many U.S. state constitutions have free speech provisions, and the supreme courts of those states are occasionally called upon to render decisions regarding them. Even absent such provisions, there are common law notions of freedom of conscience that would apply to many forms of speech. I don't think it is particularly hard to tell whether a case involved freedom of speech. Nothing prevents such cases from being included in this category (and if there were too many, we would make subcategories with this as a supercategory). bd2412 T 04:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    I agree that there are state constitutional provisions that involve free speech. Wikipedia currently does not have any articles about cases interpreting those. This category currently only contains cases interpreting the federal constitution. Should any such articles be created, a category like this one could be created to house them, and the "Free Speech Clause case law" could be a sub-category of that. And should any such articles be created, there is no reason the user should not be given the option of navigating a category that is limited to the First Amendment (there are many reasons why a reader might find only First Amendment free speech cases relevant to an inquiry). Savidan 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Student rights case law[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Student rights case law to Category:United States cases involving students
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These cases do not involve rights that apply only to students, or that students receive because of their status as students. Rather, these are just cases that involve students as parties, and there is no necessary commonality between the sources of law involved. Savidan 14:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In general these cases involve the question of which rights students do and do not have vis a vis educational institutions. There is a seperate definition of rights to students that is distinct from the rights of other individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tinker set up a standard of educational disruption that is unique to students and educational institutions. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree regarding Tinker but this category is not limited to the First Amendment. Savidan 01:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 11 articles in the cat, 1 is about searching for drugs, 1 about equal protection for LGBT students and 9 10 are free speech issues surrounding Tinker. [The LGBT case was framed under the Tinker standard.]RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States computer case law[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States computer case law to Category:United States cases involving computers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no "computer law" anymore than there is a Law of the Horse. It may be useful to organize cases that involve computers, but this category wrongly implies that the substantive law was "computer law." Savidan 13:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The Category:United States case law by topic follows this format and contains many topic areas rather than legal principles. (And, the Law of the Horse article indicates there is disagreement about legal grouping by topic area, not a universal rejection.) Don't really dislike the proposed name though, just not as succinct as the current and change not necessary. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked in that category, and I nominated for renaming all the categories to which I thought this criticism applied. Savidan 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's use these 2 nominations as test and, if successful, I think we should follow up with the environmental, tobacco, reproductive, energy and similar categories for consistency. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, current name is simple. Keep it simple. New proposed name is a mouthful and confusing. — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per arguments by RevelationDirect and Cirt. Mar4d (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Internet case law[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Internet case law to Category:United States cases involving the Internet
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no "Internet law" anymore than there is a Law of the Horse. It may be useful to organize cases that involve the Internet, but this category wrongly implies that the substantive law was "Internet law." Savidan 13:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but on other grounds: "Internet law" may or may not be a substantive field; certainly, "There is no 'Internet law' any more than there is a Law of the Horse" is one side of the debate, and the argument may, perhaps, be compelling. But when I think of United States Internet case law, I think of United States case law on the Internet, that is, web sites (as opposed to, for example, bound volumes) that contain judicial opinions. (In fact, I think that case law on the Internet is itself an encyclopædia-worthy topic.) 68.55.112.31 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The Category:United States case law by topic follows this format and contains many topic areas rather than legal principles. (And, the Law of the Horse article indicates there is disagreement about legal grouping by topic area, not a universal rejection. )Don't really dislike the proposed name though, just not as succinct as the current and change not necessary. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked in that category, and I nominated for renaming all the categories to which I thought this criticism applied. Savidan 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's use these 2 nominations as test and, if successful, I think we should follow up with the environmental, tobacco, reproductive, energy and similar categories for consistency. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please, let's keep the current format. Thanks. — Cirt (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Cirt and RevelationDirect. The current name is simpler and does not have ambiguity. Mar4d (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Polars[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 per revised nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Polars to Category:Polars (cataclysmic variable) Category:Polars (cataclysmic variable stars)
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Polar (cataclysmic variable) Polar (cataclysmic variable star). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (Corrected after main article was moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
copy of speedy rename discussion
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:Canadian female triathletes[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:Canadian triathletes and Category:Female triathletes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian female triathletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Currently the only subcategory of Category:Female triathletes. There is no need to subdivide this category by nationality, which would be overcategorization and create unnecessary maintenance work. NSH001 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Given that Category:Female triathletes includes only 13 articles to date, subcategorizing it does seem entirely unnecessary. Doing so by nationality would lead to particularly high overcategorization.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for your support, but you may want to reconsider. I have made a list of female triathletes, and can – if I want to – add the category to all of them fairly easily and quickly using AWB. The list, at User:NSH001/all triathletes/female, currently holds 243 female triathletes. I can see some value in having a cat of female triathletes, but am reluctant to do so if other editors are simply going to replicate the same, or similar, subcategory structure as the main triathletes category. Hence this nomination, to find out other editors' views. --NSH001 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • update the parent category, Category:Female triathletes, has now been fully populated (241 members) --NSH001 (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to its parents. We don't divide by both gender and nationality in any sport except basketball, I think.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly agree with upmerge. They're already in one of the parent cats (Female triathletes). There's a case for adding them into Canadian sportswomen, but we don't (at the moment) generally add female triathles to any of the sportswomen by nationality categories. That's really a discussion for another time and place. That just leaves merging them into Category:Canadian triathletes and deleting this one. --NSH001 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Arab Emirati people[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:Emirati people. The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirati people to Category:Emirati people
Nominator's rationale: This issue was also raised at an earlier CfD and also per the latest discussion here, the correct (and official) denonym for a person from the United Arab Emirates is "Emirati", not "United Arab Emirati". See the infobox on the United Arab Emirates article which lists the denonym "Emirati" and also the Emirati people article itself, as well as "List of Emiratis". All mainstream sources (eg. newspapers) refer to a native of the UAE (or anything related to the country in general) as "Emirati" while I can find no usage of the term "United Arab Emirati" anywhere apart from Wikipedia categories. It seems to have been invented. I'm going to start by proposing a rename of the parent category first. If that goes ahead, then other categories would follow suit later. Mar4d (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. Mar4d (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename and implementation across all categories that use "United Arab Emirati". "United Arab Emirati" appears to pretty much be a neologism limited in its usage to Wikipedia. I don't see why we shouldn't change to "Emirati". Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are several Emirates, and so we need to make it clear what Emirates there people are connected with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the discussion here is about the use of the word "Emirati" as a denonym. The term "Emirati" is generally used for anything associated with the United Arab Emirates. Could you provide some clarification on how would you relate this term to other emirates? Mar4d (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have never seen the term "Emirati" used to describe someone from an emirate that was not one of the United Arab Emirates. It's kind of used in the way "American" is used—yes, it could technically refer to people from a broader place (American=from any part of North/South America / Emirati=people from any emirate), but in practice it always has a more restrictive meaning (American=people from the USA / Emirati=people from the UAE). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Albums by certification[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. Nobody seems to want to close this, so I'll do so. Several comments have a desire to do something else with this information--not to delete it, but not to leave it as is. So I propose some people go off into a corner somewhere and formulate a proposal that people can weigh in on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums by certification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. While an album could well be defined by reaching gold or platinum status, no album is defined by it being certified platinum in Japan, double platinum in the United Kingdom, and triple platinum in Canada, and it certainly does not need to be categorized in every country in which it has received some sort of certification. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for some albums to be categorized in a dozen or more of these categories (with a possibility of as many as 30), such as Gold: Greatest Hits (ABBA album), Believe (Cher album), and 21 (Adele album) (to name just a few), which to me is a case of category clutter and WP:Overcategorization:
  1. Not every verifiable fact in an article requires an associated category
  2. They make it more difficult to find any other particular category, even more so with the length of the names and the number of these categories
  3. Having each of these characteristics mentioned in the lead portion of the article would not be appropriate, although general statements like "top selling" or "record breaking" may be.
  4. This may also fall under overcategorization per WP:OC#AWARD just because of the number of albums in the number of countries that certifications can be received, just like trying to categorize an actor or author or artist for every award s/he may have received.
Not to mention that criteria can change over time, meaning what's gold in 1970 could be different to what qualifies for gold certification in 2000. I have no issue with looking at an article for an album and seeing its sourced list of individual certifications. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certified album categories in this nomination
Discussion (Albums by certification)[edit]
  • Tentative keep As pointed out by the nominator, sales certifications can be (and frequently are) defining characteristics. "The platinum-award winning..." Or "...which has since sold more than 10 million copies in the United States alone" are the type of copy in all kinds of write-ups about albums, so it certainly seems like it could be defining. If this was the case, we could simply have Category:Certified gold albums and Category:Certified platinum albums and be done with it, but what constitutes "gold" status varies by certifying authority (furthermore, many albums sell well in one market or locality and not in another, so the fact that X album sold well in Y is defining...) Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Comment Though I was the creator of most of these categories (I believe only some RIAA, some RIAJ and maybe some SNEP categories existed before I started) I do agree this got a bit out of hand. I must admit to a hidden rationale. I found the fact that we mostly only categorize by RIAA a form of WP:BIAS, so I thought adding all the rest will resolve the issue. The result was indeed similar to WP:OC#AWARD. On the other hand, Category:Award winners clearly shows that WP:OC#AWARD has many exceptions. Also, the point remains though that these categories serve the purpose of categories - they ease navigation. Just the other day I saw an album who was certified Diamond by SNEP and it got me wondering about other Diamond winning albums in France. Anyway, Whatever the community's decision on this may be, I hope it does not return to the situation before I started, where everything was biased towards American sales. --Muhandes (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, pending more information. I share the concerns about the bias inherent in categorising by only one country's award system, but I also agree with the nominator that this proliferation of categories is horrendously cluttersome for albums with strong sales in multiple countries.
    However, that qualifier is crucial, because I don't know how many article are badly cluttered by these categories. I am wary of jumping in too fast on the basis of problems like that with Winston Churchill or T. P. O'Connor, who are are in squillions of categories because of their extraordinarily long careers. Some editors have looked at those articles and sought a cull of the categories, but this is bad logic because they are exceptional cases, and the categories concerned cause problems only in those few extreme examples. What we need to know in this case is how many albums end up in more than say 5 of the categories. If the clutter is restricted to a few dozen albums such as ABBA Gold, Abbey Road and Thriller, then I say keep the categories ... but if the problem is more widespread then we need to look at a cull of all but the highest-sales categories.
    I suggest that we formulate a request at WP:BOTREQ, for some statistics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete. The nominator is clearly right that this is completely out of hand. However, just deleting these categories loses the data what we eventually want to do with this information, which is... well, I don't know. I can imagine every album article getting a little table under its infobox called "Certifications." And then a bot might go through one of these categories and replace that categories with a line in the infobox that contains a flag or abbreviation of the country and the appropriate certification, such as "FRA: Gold." This might be completely impossible. But something should be done, because this category scheme is just too cluttery.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete - While I strongly second BrownHairedGirl's proposal, I would be much surprised to find that the problem is restricted to just a few albums. Albums tend to be more universal in appeal than films or books (I'm of course speaking of individual albums, films, and books, not the mediums as a whole), and unlike films and books, they require little to no localization. What this means is that record labels tend to release albums that have certifiable sales in one nation across multiple nations, and those albums tend to achieve certifiable sales in a healthy percentage of those nations as well. As a little test, I tried picking a sextuple platinum category at random - Category:Albums certified sextuple platinum by the Bundesverband Musikindustrie - and found that both of the articles in the category are hopelessly swamped with certification categories. And while I definitely see what Muhandes means about the categories easing navigation, surely a set of "List of albums certified..." articles would serve more or less the same function, and with less clutter.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can we make these categories hidden and then leave it to article authors how to present the information to readers? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move discussion to WT:ALBUM? It does not seem like there is going to be clear consensus on deletion, maybe it would be best to move this discussion to WT:ALBUM? --Muhandes (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a list of albums certified by the Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers. Since the list isn't that large and the main article is a stub, I've put it all in the one article for this case. Note that it only includes albums that have been categorized under these certifications, and it doesn't include artist's names or dates of certification yet as a WP:WORKINPROGRESS. As time allows, I can move forward on putting together the other certifying agencies' lists. The hidden category, Category:Certification Table Entry usages for Argentina, will place album articles into it that use the {{Certification Table Entry}} template. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latin grammarians[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:Grammarians of Latin. The Bushranger One ping only 05:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Latin grammarians to Category:Grammarians of Latin
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories duplicate each other. I would rather merge to "Grammarians of Latin" rather than "Latin grammarians" for two reasons: 1) most similar categories use the format "grammarians of x", and 2) there is a chance that "Latin grammarians" could be taken to mean grammarians who have a Latin-American background, not grammarians of the Latin language. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The present term is clear. It obviously referes to the classical Latin lanaguage. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the nom please! There are two identical categories. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More Numerals Categories[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: 'upmerge articles to Category:Numerals, and delete category from redirects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Eastern Arabic numerals to Category:Numerals
Merge Category:Arabic numerals to Category:Numerals
Merge Category:Indian numerals to Category:Numerals
Nominator's rationale: This discussion resulted in the deletion of several categories that consisted solely of redirects to numerals. These categories are related. Category:Eastern Arabic numerals contains a main page, in addition to 10 redirects. Category:Arabic numerals contains 2 pages and the subcat Category:Eastern Arabic numerals. Finally Category:Indian numerals contains only a main page. It doesn't seem like there will ever be enough articles to justify this sort of categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). The main articles should be upmerged and the redirects removed from the categories. LeSnail (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly do you want done with the Arabic numerals and Indian numerals categories? Do you want them deleted or upmerged? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am proposing to upmerge all of them. The redirects, however, should be removed from the categories so that the only articles moved are the main pages. I have clarified the nomination now. LeSnail (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- These are useless categories as they are merely leading to the article on the number. Except that the character from the particular script is used in the category, and a main article is given, there is no real content. There never can be any more content. The properies of any number are the same whatever script you write it in. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Great Basin landforms[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Great Basin landforms to Category:Landforms of the Great Basin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The new name will conform with other similar categories. See this prefix search. –droll [chat] 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hyades cluster[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hyades cluster to Category:Hyades (star cluster)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy nomination. The article is at Hyades (star cluster), so I suggest renaming the category to match based on the applicable naming convention: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article.". The grounds for opposition—that the proposal to match the category name to the article name "seems trivial and inelegant"—is subjective, I think. I could just as easily argue that maintaining a difference between the article name and the category name in this case is trivial and inelegant. There is no way to prove which of these two views is "correct", so it seems natural to default to the naming convention guidelines. The guidelines are there precisely to avoid such battles of subjective preference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_21&oldid=1074809412"