Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 1 September 3 >

September 2[edit]

Terms to terminology[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) 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information: Currently second CFR running.

Rationale updated' CN1 (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The subcategories are named either "X terms" or "X terminology", but their content is - as far as I can see - the same, so is there actually a difference between these descriptions? Should we not choose one of them and apply to all subcategories? I have no strong favourite for either of these two, so what do you think? I got the idea from translating the descriptions into german and "terminology" and "term" are translated to two very different looking and sounding words which I think is bad for catgories of the same object. CN1 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – as the main category is Category:Terminology one could try a speedy rename of any subcat using 'terms'. Oculi (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming from "Foo terms" to "Foo terminology", but procedurally oppose because the individual categories proposed for renaming should be tagged and listed. Note: There have been previous discussions about this (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_22#Terms_to_terminology). DexDor (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Note: "Magical terminology" might not be ideal wording. DexDor (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most subcategories are at "Terminology" already. This will require a nomination of not too many subcategories that still have "Terms" in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, subcategories have been tagged September 5, so the discussion should be closed September 12 at earliest. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. (However if some day some of these categories are nominated for deletion I might support that too because neither 'term' nor 'terminology' is a defining characteristic of many of the articles.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency per nomination.--Atvica (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support consistency. Hyacinth (talk) 10:05, 22 September 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:Astronaut-politicians[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. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection per WP:TRIVIALCAT, as those people are primarily notable as astronauts. Brandmeistertalk 13:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as (1) there may be some people (e.g. Vladimír Remek) who are as notable as a politician as an astronaut, (2) the nom does not consider the subcat Category:American astronaut-politicians and (3) the nom does not explain why this is not an upmerge. Note: Previous related discussions e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_11#Category:Nurse-politicians. DexDor (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WE have had a number of past discussions about politicians by previous career. My view is that previous career is very relevant. However in the past others have considered that it is a trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection on two career paths, a list might be keepable if the notability of the link can be established. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are arguably some cases where the intersection of "politician" with "career that the person held before entering politics" constitutes a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right (albeit far fewer of those than some people seem to think there are), I've still never seen any credible evidence that this would be one of them — "astronaut-politicians" are not the subject of any reliable source coverage about them as a class of thing, distinct from "nurse-politicians" or "actor-politicians" or "lawyer-politicians" or "cab driver-politicians". It's just an intersection of two distinct occupations with no inherent relationship to each other. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a trivial overlap category. While a few may have been propelled to fame from being astronauts that they then leveraged to being politicians, this is still just a trivial link with nothing defining about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Astronauts tend to be famous. Famous people tend to get elected more easily. That middle hop makes this non-defining intersection in my book. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. There is an article astronaut-politician, which suggests to me that this may be a "thing": it's true that astronauts have often leveraged their fame from being an astronaut into a political career, to an extent such that it may be a cultural phenomenon that is written about in secondary sources. I'm not 100% sold on my opinion about this, but also, Category:American astronaut-politicians is not included in this nomination, and should be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That still looks problematic to me. Books generally don't appear to use that phrase and neither does Google Scholar. Also, there is no broad precedent to categorize people by two unrelated occupations. In case of significant political career, they could be categorized separately as fooian politicians (similarly to many other people active in multiple areas). Brandmeistertalk 20:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that sources appear not to use the phrase, which makes the case weak. But if the category name is interpreted as a descriptive phrase rather than a formal title or commonly used name, there are sources that discuss the intersection: the second book in the google books search above, for instance. As I said, I'm not totally sold on my opinion. It's not clear to me though why we are not discussing the entire tree rather than just the head category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Good Olfactory on the need of a wider nomination, moreover I would suggest to discuss the whole tree of Category:Politicians by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Good Olfactory. Like him, my opinion could change should Astronaut-politician were to be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 20 October 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:City University London[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) 18:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: City University London has changed its name to City, University of London from 1 September 2016 CJGC (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – so it has: City, University of London. Oculi (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rationale is entirely correct, and I support the move in principle. However, there are 3 sub-categories which should have been renamed at the same time, and no reason is offer for excluding them. Consistency in category names is important ... so either rename all 4 together, or leave them as they are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty of adding the other 3 (and tagging all 4). Oculi (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- When I read the nom, my immediate reaction was that the change implies it is part of the University of London; and that is just what the article says. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 4 September 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:Society by nationality[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/merge. This discussion did not decide to change the format of the subcategories; they were not nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per actual content. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a next step, yes. I haven't included the other one here because that one is slightly more complicated. Here it's entirely obvious that this is all by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me this is an issue of low priority. There is no ambiguity in the current names of the subcats, everyone will hopefully understand that French society is equivalent to Society of France. But if anyone else would bother about it and propose that as a next step, I would support it for consistency reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not change It is not a low priority, it is the core of the problem since your nomination rationale only says rename "per actual content" but the subcategories are the exact opposite of what you say--they are all named in the nationality pattern. You need to nominate all of them with some valid reason or withdraw the nomination. Hmains (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is merely the names of the country subcats that are slightly ambiguous (just slightly), but the content is clearly about each respective country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not 'merely' anything--it is the heart of the matter. Withdraw the nomination and resubmit with a nomination that includes all the 200+ subcats. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 22 September 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:Liability[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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: currently there are two entirely different topics in one category.Note that Liability is a disambiguation page referring to Public liability and Liability (financial accounting). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but in cases like this it may be better to create the separate categories and then take the original category to CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.Le Deluge (talk) 12:09, 21 September 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:Ghanaian football personalities[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 category and recategorize articles when needed. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. This is the only "football personalities" category in en wp. For info: This category was created with inappropriate text and inappropriate parent category. Most of the articles in this category are in Category:Ghanaian footballers. Some (e.g. Asamoah Gyan) have many many category tags. James Oyedeji and Kwesi Nyantakyi could be upmerged to Category:Football people in Ghana. DexDor (talk) 05:56, 2 September 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:Saut-al-falah-trust[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) 05:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category has one article, which does not currently mention the topic. It seems to be a "welfare trust" of some kind (based on this edit which was later removed from the article. — TAnthonyTalk 02:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now It doesn't currently aid navigation. If 5 articles every show up, we can reconsider. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a prerequisite is an article on the trust. Oculi (talk) 10:57, 2 September 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_September_2&oldid=1074817503"