Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 16 November 18 >

November 17[edit]

Category:Districts of Glasgow[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Districts" implies some sort of formal administrative divisions. Changing to "areas" reflects that the contents of the category are geographical rather than official, and is also consistent with other cities in Scotland and the rest of the UK. Jellyman (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2016 (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:Who's Next[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – its contents are already contained in appropriate subcats of Category:The Who and this adds nothing extra. Oculi (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2016 (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:Tunnel Rats[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care if this gets deleted or kept - my reason for creation is so that there would be a category that would work for Tunnel Rats (music group) and Template:Tunnel Rats. I thought it would be odd to categorize the entire band under "members," and that it would be more convenient to have a single category for the template instead of both the "discography" and "members" templates.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 17 November 2016 (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.

Single-article Book of Isaiah chapters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories contains only the single main article of the same name. It's unclear why these would be needed. There is no need to merge anywhere, since all of the articles about chapters are already in Category:Book of Isaiah chapters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Empty categories with no chance for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all assuming there is nothing to merge. It items that I checked have nothing but a main article and redirects from certain verses. One Category for the whole book is as much as is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2016 (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:Heroes of the Environment[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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Heroes of the Environment is a list produced by Time magazine. As such, categorizing by it is overcategorization since the list is essentially subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Lists already exist for this information, eg, Heroes of the Environment (2008). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OCAWARD. This is NN award, and I note there are no articles since 2009, suggesting that it has ceased to be awarded or confirming it in NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2016 (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:Sufi women[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: purge and rename to Category:Female Sufi mystics. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We generally do not categorize by the intersection of religion and gender. Note that we have no natural parent, which would be Category:Muslim women. (There is no need to merge anywhere since the articles are all in other appropriate subcategories of Category:Sufis.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2016 (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:Calabrian[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:Calabrian (stage) (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming to match Calabrian (stage) and because Calabrian is a disambiguation page. This was opposed at speedy rename (see below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2016 (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.

Category:Moscovian[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming to match Moscovian (Carboniferous) and because Moscovian is a disambiguation page. This was opposed at speedy rename (see below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Rename to match article name, per convention in cfds. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2016 (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:Mississippian[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 proposed. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming to match Mississippian (geology) and because Mississippian is a disambiguation page. This was opposed at speedy rename along with some other similar rename proposals, but there was no discussion of this category or why the specific proposal was being opposed apart from a user stating that they would prefer that it remain unchanged (see below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Rename to match article name, per convention in cfds. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated, because there is already a subcat Category:Mississippian geology, which should perhaps be renamed to the target name. The nominated category is for the Mississippian epoch, and includes Category:Mississippian life, which is (arguably) not a geological topic. Perhaps Category:Mississippian epoch would be better. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow: Period or epoch would do well. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this and others to (geology) to match article name. I wouldn't sweat the life angle - such life is only known from fossils, and the period in which it lived is defined by rock layers. That sounds like geology to me. And that's before you get to the C2D angle. As a minor thing, it's worth noting that there's a hidden WP:ENGVAR issue here - North Americans have traditionally treated the Miss & Penn as full-blown geological periods, but international consensus follows the European tradition of treating them as subperiods within the Carboniferous period. So something to watch out for is them being treated as periods within the Wiki hierarchy, although I've not checked. Le Deluge (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated per WP:C2D and, as a next step, nominate Category:Mississippian geology to merge into this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2016 (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:Pennsylvanian[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 proposed. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming to match Pennsylvanian (geology) and because Pennsylvanian is a disambiguation page. This was opposed at speedy rename along with some other similar rename proposals, but there was no discussion of this category or why the specific proposal was being opposed apart from a user stating that they would prefer that it remain unchanged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2016 (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.

Category:Today I Caught the Plague albums[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 and leave a redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same band, name change. Note that this name redirects to their newer name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – just make the former a subcat of the latter (which I have done). This is a neater solution. Oculi (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's much better to have all of these albums together in one category, and if there is no Wikipedia article with the name of the old band, it makes sense to merge. It is comparable to how we treat alumni of schools that undergo a name change. We don't have separate categories for alumni of every name iteration a school goes through. So we also don't need to do it for every name iteration a band goes through if it's the same band. A name is just a name and we can have a redirect on any old names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are together in one category, Category:The Kindred (band) albums. It is much better to categorise Lore (Today I Caught the Plague album) as an 'I caught the Plague Album' as the word Kindred does not appear in the visible text of the article or on the sleeve of the album. (We often have separate alumni categories. I am not going to give examples as I do not wish to tempt editors into merge proposals.) Oculi (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: "They are together in one category, Category:The Kindred (band) albums." Yeah, but not, like, all articles together in one category. They are subcategorized. I think it's clear that there is a distinction between the two set-ups. Koavf's examples are well taken. As for the alumni examples—of course, any editor can create anything at any time. But the point is that any time I have ever seen separate alumni categories come up for discussion, they have been merged. Hiding stuff that editors have created for fear of prompting merge proposals is not exactly a great argument for your position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: Can you please tell me which other categories you have in mind? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to alumni categories; I am not going to give examples (why should I?). With bands I am aware of bands which change their names to a similar name (eg the Mt Zion ones) and have a single category. I can't see any disadvantage whatever in keeping the specified categories. We do not for instance put articles about Rhodesia into Zimbabwe. The most recent alumni category to come up was not merged (Category:People educated at City of Bath Boys' School). Oculi (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: "I was referring to alumni categories; I am not going to give examples (why should I?)." Hopefully, a goal of everyone who works within the category system can be to work out, through consensus, a consistent and useable system of categories. To refuse to provide examples of categories which conform to a category set-up one is attempting to defend is quite remarkable. If you're not going to provide examples, why even bring it up? How is this helping anyone or anything? It reeks of "gaming" the system and/or of hiding categories in fear that there will be a consensus that they should be deleted or changed in a way one disagrees with. A type of an ownership issue, it seems to me. I guess the best answer to the "why should I?" question would be that another user asked you in good faith to share the information, apparently in an attempt to learn more about this particular naming issue. You don't have to share it of course, but it doesn't look very good to not do so when you are otherwise taking the time to respond. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- the precedent for this is how we deal with alumni categories for renamed or merged schools, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There should be only one category per band. (Of course the old name should be retained as a category redirect.) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_17&oldid=1138410245"