Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15

Category:Articles waiting for more information to be released from February 2012

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 per the below consensus and because the template that populated it was deleted (so speedily deleted as well). @RevelationDirect, yes.

Bencherlite ^Talk 18:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nominator's rationale: Violates

WP:OC Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Per nom JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that this is intended to be a tracking category but what can one do for articles like these except just wait until the information is released? We could, I suppose, wait for the outcome of the TfD discussion about the template that populates this category but, frankly, I don't think the category is needed even if the template is kept. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article will not exist unless it has enough information. On the other hand, many, many articles could benefit from "more information". That's what we have
stubs for. Overcategorizing. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- I cannot believe this is really a useful maintenance category. I can see the intention that a link to a website, where information is likely to occur can be placed on a talk page, but it will be much better if the editor does his own watching nof the website, rather than expect WP to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delay Consideration until March 1st. Am I the only one that is curious what will appear here? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:26, 22 February 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:Logical syntax

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. There's no compelling reason to avoid matching the article name here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Logical syntax to Category:Syntax (logic)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the name of this category to its main article Syntax (logic). In the opposed speedy nomination copied below, there was discussion of possible alternate names. Those suggestion are fine, but I think they should be had at Talk:Syntax (logic). Per the general naming conventions, the category name should match the article name in this case. If the article name ever changes, then the category name should be renamed to match it. Since the opposition to this speedy rename was made rather forcefully (ie, in ALLCAPS), I think some history of the naming debate is in order:

User:Gregbard created the category under the current name on 4 June 2010.
Two days later, he nominated the article
Logical syntax
.
The requested move received no support and was closed as "move not done/no support".
User:Gregbard now opposes the renaming of the category to match the article.

So having failed to move the article to his preferred name, User:Gregbard is now trying to prevent the category name from being changed from that same name, which was rejected (as it applies to the article) by consensus? That's what it looks like to me—but then again, I'm not a logician. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of speedy nomination

Category:Logical syntax to Category:Syntax (logic) – C2D per Syntax (logic) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I am strongly opposed to these parenthetical titles. I think I had tried to move this main page at some point and it didn't work out because of politics. So I am very frustrated at all of this by now. PLEASE STOP PROPOSING THESE PARENTHETICAL TITLES. PLEASE. I HAVE ASKED POLITELY BEFORE. NOW I AM ASKING AGAIN. Greg Bard (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to shout. Just because you have made a polite request doesn't mean the other party will oblige you. I think I've already attempted to explain that to you and where our opinions differ on these matters. I looked atyour old proposal to move the article. It looks to me like it was opposed on the merits by everyone who commented—as far as I can see, it was nothing to do with "politics". The users recognized that "Logical syntax" is ambiguous and can have a different meaning than Syntax (logic). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The existing name is liguistically incorrect and must change to the noun "logic" (as in syntax that relates to logic) from the adjective "logical" (as in the syntax is logical). Whether the change be to Logic syntax or Syntax of logic, I have no suggestion. But the suggested Syntax (logic) seems wrong somehow; a title without the ambiguator should make sense on its own within the field, but this would mean "syntax as it occurs in the field of logic", which is not the same as "syntax of logic expressions", and I think the latter is intended. Maybe Logic expression syntax? —Quondum ^☏✎ 15:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename I'm all for having the cat name follow the main article name, unless the article name is clearly problematic. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. For me, it comes down to the question of which expression is clearer and more natural: "In logic, syntax is..." or "Logical syntax is...". Currently, the article and its title reflect the former approach. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm not always thrilled by parenthetical titles but, as in this case, they're still better than the alternative. I would also argue that many of our readers are familiar with the way we use such disambiguators. In this case, this is a category about syntax as it is understood within the field of logic and that's exactly what you'd expect given the title Category:Syntax (logic). Pichpich (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The current name is ambiguous and the proposed name is clear. Tne associated article is about how the term "syntax" is used in the context of formal logic. I suppose Category:Syntax (formal logic) might be even clearer. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename there are many famous books and articles which use the phrase "Logical syntax"[1]. Most of these seem to refer to
Carnap's "Logical Syntax of Language" this has quite a specific philosophical point. The current content of the category seem to be more logical and linguist than philosophical. So Category:Logical syntax is ambiguous about the field it is in, but Category:Syntax (Logic) places it clearly under logic.--Salix (talk): 09:10, 22 February 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:Springs

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: Self-withdrawal. I will hold off on this nomination until the location of

resolved one way or the other; after that the issue could be raised again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose renaming Category:Springs to Category:Springs (hydrosphere)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should this category be renamed to match

Spring (hydrosphere)? Spring is ambiguous, of course—and currently we have Category:Springs (mechanical). My thinking was that Category:Springs should probably be a disambiguation category. If renamed, it raises the sticky issue of the subcategories. If this category is renamed, I think the subcategories should probably not be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

To keep it real simple, would
talk) 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd be fine with it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to
spring (water), because "spring water" is a slightly different concept: it refers to the stuff that comes out of the spring, rather than the geological formation. I reckon that "hydrology" seems to be the least worst option so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you think we want to hold off on this discussion and first propose that the article be renamed to Spring (hydrology)? For the category, I would be fine with any of the suggestions mentioned thus far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to hold off. And sorry, I must have been asleep when I wrote the above, cos the current dab is hydrology, not hydrosphere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 15 February 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:Traditional logic

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: Self-withdraw: a proposal has been made to rename the article, so this nomination can wait for that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Traditional logic to Category:Term logic

Nominator's rationale: Rename. My understanding is that "traditional logic", "term logic" and "Aristotelian logic" all mean pretty much the same thing—at least to the extent that we only need one article, not three different ones. In WP, the article is at

Aristotelian logic, the category name should of course follow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

copy of speedy nomination

Category:Traditional logic to Category:Term logic – C2D per Term logic Good Ol’factory^(talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- G.O. You know a lot about wikipedia categories, but you don't know what you are doing here. You propose this change just to match the main article, and I think that is not enough to go on. It's just very sloppy and presumptuous way to do things. The more appropriate main page and category name would be "
WP:PHILO first. Greg Bard (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
First line of Term logic: "In philosophy, term logic, also known as traditional logic or Aristotelian logic, ...". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 15 February 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:Logical symbols

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. There are some problems with tone in this discussion. Please be mindful of the goal of making arguments without personal attacks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Logical symbols to Category:Logic symbols

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think "logic symbols" is a slightly preferable construction for these, since "logical symbols" could be understood to mean something different (as discussed in the speedy discussion below). The list article in the category is already named List of logic symbols, so I nominate this category to match that naming format. (This was a speedy nomination that was opposed and subsequently commented on by a few users. I initially thought that this would be fairly non-controversial.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy discussion

Category:Logical symbols to Category:Logic symbols – per List of logic symbols ("logical symbols" is ambiguous)Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do understand how it is possible to say that this is ambiguous. I.e. that "logical symbol" could mean something like a "symbol that makes sense", or whatever. I just don't think there is any chance in the world that anyone is going to make that mistake, and if it did happen once in a million Wikipedia years, that wouldn't make this move necessary. I think there is an extreme over-sensitivity to ambiguity and think these proposals should originate at
WP:MATH to see how we want to handle things. Interestingly, who would you go to as an expert in what is and is not ambiguous? A logician. Greg Bard(talk) 04:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
So, essentially you oppose because the proposal wasn't made by a logician? Otherwise, what is the opposition based on? You've acknowledged that the current form is more ambiguous and I pointed out that the rename would bring consistency between the name used in article space and category space. So why not do it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – On purely linguistic grounds, "logical symbols" is simply incorrect (not ambiguous). We use a noun qualifier to suggest "relates to", not an adjective. A "logical symbol" is a symbol that adheres to some rules of logic; a "logic symbol" is a symbol that relates to logic. We speak of speed bumps, not speedy bumps. —Quondum ^☏✎ 15:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - compare "mathematical symbols" versus "mathematics symbols". In any case this does not fall under C2D, because the category would not ever start with "list of". — Carl (
CBM · talk) 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak rename per nom. Unless I'm mistaken, both expressions are used by
reliable sources to refer to the same concept; see these comparisons of 'logic symbol'–'logical symbol' and 'logic symbols'–'logical symbols', and check the actual results. So, it's safe to say, I think, that both titles are valid; still, I agree with Good Ol'factory and Quondom that 'logic symbols' is less ambiguous than 'logical symbols' and, absent a reason to prefer the current title, I favor the proposed, clearer title. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I took a look at those results, and the two links are inconsistent with each other, so that doesn't exactly support your claim. I have read (you know, actual READING) logic literature of all kinds. I have NEVER seen "logic symbol." Never. Not once. It's not an adjective and a noun. It's a term: "logical symbol." I am also wondering if "logical connective" is next based on someone's vast experience. G.O. has just reverted my move of the main article, having my hand forced with this issue. So at this point, I am wondering what the principle of action is here?!? I think moving that article was hostile to the collaborative environment. Say listen, I don't play games here on Wikipedia. With all due respect, I don't think people supporting this proposal know anything about the subject matter. Please reconsider, and please help move that article back to "logical symbol" too. Greg Bard (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1: Propose that the article be moved using the

WP:RM process. Step 2: The article will be moved (if there is consensus to do so). Step 3: Nominate the category for naming to Category:Logical symbols to match the article's name. That's usually the order things go in. Black Falcon's n-gram viewer demonstrates that the phrase "logic symbol" is used in books (peaking in about 1989), so you may just not be reading the right stuff. :) Finally, it's best not to assume that particular editors know nothing about any given subject matter—when a user does, it usually leaves the user with egg on his or her face. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This is ridiculous. How about this: It is very clear that you don't know what you are doing, and I am not being a jerk, but rather making plaintiff pleas for you to stop, and you have refused. Now you are redirecting me to some process, rather than relent. I've always had a lot of respect for you as an editor, and you have worked with me on my requests before. Why are you creating more work for me? If you had just left the moved article alone, we wouldn't have to go through any process. Greg Bard (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are you creating more work for me? If you had just left the moved article alone, we wouldn't have to go through any process." Because I don't believe moving the article is a desirable change, nor do I think it would gain a consensus if you proposed it. "It is very clear that you don't know what you are doing". Please stop attacking me, or else these sorts of comments might have to be posted at

WP:WQA for general user comment. You have no idea who I am and what my background knowledge is, so stop assuming things. It would be nice if users could learn to disagree with others without attacking them or assuming they have a window into the knowledge base of the other user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"It's not an attack, and I wonder why you think it is?! Your proposal makes things clear enough. If someone in the biology department asked me to leave their categories alone, I'D LEAVE THEM ALONE. It's not an ego investment. Take a look at non-logical symbol. How many times is "logic" used as an adjective in that article? I have no idea what will achieve a consensus and what will not. There is no rhyme or reason to it, and I would rather not see another Wikipedia Fail due to a political process in that regard. Greg Bard (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think writing "It is very clear that you don't know what you are doing" cannot be perceived as attacking another editor, then there really is a problem with your behavior. That's not acceptable language to use on WP—towards me or towards anyone else. I hope the use of such comments will stop. (Your suggestion that I should leave articles and categories alone just because a possessive person suggests I should demonstrates what looks to me like a misunderstanding of what WP is all about. Your use of the phrase "their categories" is telling: No one owns articles and categories, nor do they belong to any Wikiproject. Review the principles found in

WP:OWN.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This has gone way over the top. You are obviously not letting go of this idea that I don't think you know what you are doing. So, I certainly apologize, as, like I said, I have a lot of respect for you historically. I think you are being very hypersensitive now, and I would like to AGAIN focus on the merits of the proposal. However, speaking for myself, I defer to others in areas outside of my direct education. I have read a lot of logic, so I am finding this insufferable. You can take that under advisement anyway you want. However, I still think it would be a good idea to entertain the notion that populism isn't the priority here. I am more than familiar with WP:OWN and you are very presumptuous to think it applies. I defer to experts, and I expect others to do the same. So since we are so invested, please do delineate your experience in logic. You may very well shut me up, out of respect. However, I still can't deny my own experience reading all these logic texts, never once seeing "logic symbol" or any similar construction. Greg Bard (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to announce to all that you've read a lot of stuff—that's good for you. You can do that if you like. Just do not (1) state that others don't know what they are talking about when you disagree with their approach, or (2) suggest to others that they should be deferring to you or other self-proclaimed experts on a subject. I suppose you can do (2) if you like, but then (3) don't be surprised or offended when others ignore your request/suggestion to stop editing just because you disagree with them and you proclaim yourself an expert who is to be deferred to. I'm not at all interested in credentialism peeing wars on WP. It's true that I am educated and that I have read widely but I don't feel I need to talk about the details of it all to strengthen my arguments on Wikipedia. I'm not looking for respect or asking people to defer to my opinion. I share my opinion, but that doesn't mean it's always correct. Users are free to disagree or to agree with me, but it's a trite fact that the entire WP system works by consensus, not by deferring to editor expertise, and I support that approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked google scholar and it's 2360 for "logical symbol" and 1730 for "logic symbol." So what is up? Most of those "logic symbol" instances are computer science people being casual with the term.Greg Bard (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak rename Basically agree with Black Falcon above. I could live with "logical symbols" but prefer "logic symbols". Pichpich (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am not sure if this counts, as I have made my opinion known, in the speedy rename debate. In the course of my studies, I never see "logic symbol." Invariably it's "logical symbol" in any literature on the subject. Up to this point we have been presuming about what main article goes with this category. I think Symbol (formal) is the concept that is intended. Please also note CBM's objections as well, please.Greg Bard (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename per Pichpich and Black Falcon, and see also the parallel discussion for Category:Logical syntax. The opposite of logical is illogical, but I accept that both forms exist in common use. "Logic" is more clearly part of the noun, which is surely the intended interpretation. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:18, 22 February 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:Buffy comics images

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buffy comics images to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer images

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other subcategories of Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer refer to Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the title, instead of just "Buffy". The images category was created specifically for comics, but contains only a sub-category for comic book covers. If renamed, it could be used for Buffy images in general, such as File:Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Chaos Bleeds Coverart.png, and the covers of the Buffy novels. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 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:Hiking trails in Greater Moncton

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Hiking trails in Greater Moncton

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per

talk) 19:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Upmerge per nom and
WP:SMALLCAT. Wouldn't it have been better to group these Greater Moncton smallcats into one nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sure it would have. I really didn't anticipate nominating more of them.
talk) 02:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Upmerge per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- We seem to have an overenthuiisastic category creator: Category:Moncton has far too many subcategories for a city of just under 70,000. They start to become a hindrance, rather than an aid, to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- fwiw,
  talk) 14:56, 18 February 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:Natural opium alkaloids

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: relisted at CfD 2012 February 29 to allow a fuller consensus to be reached. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natural opium alkaloids to Category:opium alkaloids

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Alkaloids are by definition natural, so "natural opium alkaloids" is redundant. Simply using "opium alkaloids" would be better. ChemNerd (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some 'alkaloids' are generated from natural opium alkaloids by chemical modification - eg Heroin and several other notable painkillers - these are "opiod structure" - Category:Semisynthetic opioids, (also see Category:Morphinans) - semi-synthetic opioid are a subcat of alkaloids - but they are not natural.
If we lose the "natural" then the scope of the category grows to include these semi-synthetics and derivatives - meaning the useful category only containing naturally occuring opioids is lost.
Therefor I oppose - keep the old name.Mddkpp (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Semisynthetic opioids and Category:Morphinans can be organized so that they do not appear as subcategories of Category:Natural opium alkaloids. Synthetic analogs or derivatives of alkaloids are not properly referred to as alkaloids. ChemNerd (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't now. the 'offending' category is Category:Opioids which contains all of them- it is a subcat of alkaloids - which makes the seemingly unavoidable contradiction of having "synthetic opioids" as subcats of "alkaloids" (possibly this can be fixed see "comment1" below)Mddkpp (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some category structure difficulties here If I'm following the articles correctly, the alkaloids from the poppy which are opioids form the class of opiates, by definition. The category we have here therefore is either redundant to Category:Opiates (and therefore should be merged into the latter), or it contains poppy alkaloids which are not opioids. Anything which is an opioid (e.g. heroin) wouldn't be directly in this category, nor would any of the opiates (e.g. morphine). If this were all sorted out, I would support rename as proposed. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "opiates" In the traditional sense, opiate has referred to only the alkaloids in opium and the natural and semi-synthetic derivatives of opium. - one could place Category:Semisynthetic opioids and Category:Natural opium alkaloids in this category. All these and "natural opium alkaloids" are currently in the parent - it makes sense to have these three classes in the same category - though the two mentioned could go in the subcat too if that helps.

Comment1 It appears to be acceptable that by definition alkaloids are always natural. However in the context of the categorisation scheme I feel using the redundant word makes the category easier to find/see amongst all the semisynthetic and synthetic types - Possibly what would solve the contradiction would be to renamed to naturally occuring opioids - this name works in the context. However I can change my opinion easily on this once the parent category is cleaned up and organised properly

Q. - perhaps the categorisation "alkaloid" should be removed from Category:Opioids ? - I think the entire cat needs a tidy - ie Category:Opiates appears to contain stuff that shouldn't be in there eg Normorphine

Also I think a new subcat Category:Opiate preparations is needed to collect some 'junk'. The parent needs tidying by an expert too. Could that be done and then return to the problem?Mddkpp (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to holding off on this rename until the related categories are cleaned up and/or reorganized. It's probably worth getting editors from

WP:PHARM involved if that is going to be done. ChemNerd (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment2 Neither Category:Opium nor Category:Natural opium alkaloids belong in Category:Opioids, as not all opium compounds/alkaloids are opioids, and not all opioids are opium compounds/alkaloids. I have removed both. (I've also placed Cat:Opium in Category:Psychoactive drugs so as not to create a dead end, but I'm not very happy with that solution. That is, however, a different problem.)

That said, I weakly support renaming. I appreciate the argument about "Natural opium alkaloids" being more explicit, but the name seems to imply that there were such things as (semi-)synthetic opium alkaloids, which is not the case. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:44, 24 February 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.

LGBT comedians by nationality

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 to Category:LGBT comedians & the relevant nationality category. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:LGBT comedians

Category:LGBT comedians by nationality

Nominator's rationale: 1) The top level category does not have enough entries to warrant diffusion due to size - 125 articles. 2) Diffusion by nationality "should be avoided if that geographical boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics" (see

WP:OC#NARROW also discourages this kind of triple intersection due to clutter. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Question. Does the nominator really, seriously mean that comedy is not linked to national culture? I am not aware of many German or Filipino comedians enjoying much success in Ireland or in the United Kingdom. Have I missed them all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I mis-stated that :) Their nationality *is* a characteristic, as is their gender identity/sexual orientation. But a comedian has to pull on all their characteristics to reach a wide audience, so even an Irish comedian is funny in the Philippines, whether they are LGBT or not. The point is that narrowly categorizing these articles does not serve the encyclopedia. Sorry for my error. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You state "4) WP:OC#NARROW also discourages this kind of triple intersection due to clutter." But wouldn't it create more "clutter" without this breakdown? For example, instead of just the one cat of Category:LGBT comedians from Germany on an article, it would have two (LGBT comedians and German comedians). Lugnuts (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's considered cluttering because one *could* put a person in Category:LGBT comedians, Category:LGBT people from Canada, Category:Canadian comedians, and then the triple intersection on top of it: Category:LGBT comedians from Canada. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, trivial triple intersection of sexual preference, nationality and occupation. Using Rick Mercer as an example, he is notable for being a Canadian comedian (in fact, his focus has long been Canadian-specific satire), so categorizing him as a "Canadian comedian", could be considered both proper in terms of what his comedy is known for, and the need to diffuse Category:Comedians. His comedy typically has little to do with LGBT issues, and for me, this is where these category trees break down as the one has little to do with the other. In this example cited, this category tries to take the correct categories of Category:LGBT television personalities from Canada and Category:Canadian television comedians and fuse them into this redundant category. Reso lute 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ and keep. 125 seems a lot of entries, and has scope for growth. Categorising comedians by country is fine .. by "gender" and "country" seems a lot - but I guess that a lot of comedy relates to this sort of stuff. Close to overcategorisation, but not far enough. Current categories seem ok to me.Mddkpp (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the ghetto-isation argument I can't recommend keep as is - this is avoided by further sub-categorisation by other terms - eg comedic style, era, media etc etc - if a comedian is in several sub categories of broad range then the ghetto-isation argument does not apply. How realistic that would be to do is debateable (until someone tries) - would probably just raise issues of overcat. vague delete unless more categorisation work can fix ghetto problemMddkpp (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dual upmerge all to
WP:CATGRS is avoiding ghettoization. The guideline is clear that "an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory". I think that this is an important principle, and it is why I support upmerger. The current sub-categorisation of the national comedian categories are patchy, and having looked at each of the countries I don't see any reasonable prospect of labelling any of the relevant "nationalityish comedians" category as a {{container category}}. That means that in every case the "nationalityish LGBT comedians" category is a ghetto, which is not acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose the "final rung" here is nationality, not LGBT so keeping this breakdown is within the guidelines of
WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. --Fæ (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Not so. Take a look at Category:German comedians or Category:Filipino comedians. These national LGBT category ghettoises the LGBT comedians by removing them the national comedians category, and placing them in a subcat which amounts to an LGBT ghetto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned in discussing this with SatyrTN in advance of his nomination, the core issue here is that while someone like Rick Mercer is certainly an "LGBT person from Canada" and a "Canadian comedian", the fact that he's specifically an "LGBT comedian from Canada" is of minimal encyclopedic relevance. Being a "Canadian comedian" as opposed to being a "German comedian" is certainly a point of notability, and being an "LGBT comedian" is as well — but being an "LGBT comedian from Canada" isn't a meaningful distinction from being an "LGBT comedian from Germany". The category, in other words, isn't a defining characteristic in its own right — it's merely a "people who happen to be both X and Y" intersection of things that are certainly defining characteristics on their own, but don't constitute a defining characteristic when merged together into a single category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the fooian comedians and LGBT comedians categories. If kept, it's absolutely essential to make sure that any member of the intersection is also placed directly in the parent categories. To continue with the above example, we should expect that many people looking for Rick Mercer are unaware that he is gay so isolating him in the LGBT subcategory is counter-productive. And of course, if we're keeping membership in the parent categories, the intersection is just a recipe for clutter. Pichpich (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while comedians' nationality is notable; it's questionable whether their sexual orientation is: gay comedians may use their gayness as part of the humor, but no doubt straight male comedians make humor about girlfriends, and straight female comedians make humor about men. So the triple intersection is not a notable one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 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:Tournament of Hearts

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) 12:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tournament of Hearts to Category:Scotties Tournament of Hearts

Nominator's rationale: Main article is Scotties Tournament of Hearts and the tournament is known under this name since 2007. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Scott has been the sponsor of the Heart since its inception, so the addition of the name doesn't feel like a temporary thing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the shorter title is concise and accurate, where the titles of individual tournaments are either called "Scott" or "Scotties", dropping the sponsor title seems to be better as a more inclusive title. 65.92.182.149 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but Scott and Scotties are the same brand. It's just a cosmetic change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:18, 16 February 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:Disambiguation

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) 12:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disambiguation to Category:Wikipedia disambiguation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this should be renamed to conform with

Disambiguation that redirects to Word-sense disambiguation, as well as the several entries at Disambiguation (disambiguation). The rename would make it clear that the category deals with Wikipedia:Disambiguation, not any of these other meanings. (I initially nominated this at speedy, but it was opposed and I had the wrong format on the target category; a copy of the discussion is included below.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

copy of speedy nomination

Category:Disambiguation to Category:Wikipedia:Disambiguation – C2D per Wikipedia:Disambiguation Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only example provided in the criterion is for the main namespace, not the Cat one, and it appears there is no precedent for the claim that C2D ever mandates titles to begin "Category:Wikipedia:...", as the nominator apparently concludes from the language
Renaming a category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles – the category could be renamed under this criterion if the article is moved).

If there were precedents, something other than the following facts would surely obtain:
There are 56 Cats "in use" with titles starting "Wikipedia:". Of them, 51 are just red-links to notional Cats (with 1 or 2 members each), and 5 each have a page in the Cat namespace. Of those five, none has more than 20 members; 3 apparently have to do with
GLAM (industry sector), and they collectively have 36 memberships (presumably some being pages that are members of more than one of the 3); at a glance, it seems likely that 3 of the 36 are templates that assign users to the respective Cats, and the rest are in the User namespace.
The remaining two non-redlinked Cats have 18 and 3 members respectively. (I am fascinated by -- but uncomprehending of -- the 18-member one, Category:Wikipedia:Authority control (key words only); it has only main-namespace pages as members and each concerns a topic "native" to some non-English language. (About two thirds of the topics pertain to German. The lead of one,Schlagwortnormdatei
, translates its own title as "Keyword Authority Control", hinting at the need for k.a.c. of names for bodies exercising k.a.c.... I'm going to resist the fascination.)

I doubt there is any problem that the proposed move would ameliorate, especially as it appears this Cat's title has been stable at least since 2004, when the second edit to the page coveniently mentioned the current title. IMO, any perception that a problem now exists has to overcome a strong presumption to the contrary -- far from cases where speedy is suitable.
--Jerzy•t 07:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this one as well. Sometimes the article name is of a form that doesn't suit itself to a category name, and I think this is one of those times.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that Good Ol'factory's on the right track here, but the new name should be Category:Wikipedia disambiguation, per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I had that thought earlier today—that I should have just nominated it to Category:Wikipedia disambiguation. I'll start a full discussion to that effect shortly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. While not all of our disambiguation categories need to be prefixed with 'Wikipedia', this top-level one should be in order to clarify that this is a Wikipedia administration category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that being a top-level Cat and concerned with administration should make a difference is credible on its face, but we should know whether this reflects current practice or is in effect newly proposed practice. Category:Wikipedia administration suggests that meeting your admin/TL criterion is feasible, unless you have a reason for leaving out Category:Wikipedia Jimbo Wales. Is Category:Wikipedia Cabal Decrees problematic?
--Jerzy•t 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point, and I suppose that it's a mix of both. On the one hand, the principle has been upheld (to my knowledge, at least) every time it has been raised for discussion at
WP:CFD; on the other hand, the naming of internal administration categories often seems to lack any clear, unifying thread. The judgment of adding or omitting 'Wikipedia' should, I think, be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, I would consider Category:Wikipedia Jimbo Wales to be less clear and more confusing than Category:Jimbo Wales. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Once stated that explicitly, that makes sense. And now i see that it's the "Supreme Cabal", not the "Wikipedia Cabal", so my fear that you advocated Category:Wikipedia Wikipedia Cabal decrees is lain (not laid, i think) to rest! Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 03:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Black Falcon and per the convention of administrative categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GOf has quoted the convention out of context, and BHG has misinterpreted it accordingly. The language "if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories" should be read in the context of the remaining, so far unquoted sentence:
For example, Category:Inactive project pages (where no confusion is likely), but Category:Wikipedia tools (as distinct from the content category Tools).

While that example does not explicitly claim all relevant examples are of the same kind with respect to existence of parallel non-Cat names, one should presume that the writer of the convention went out of their way to find a Cat title that has perfect parallels in both main-namespace and Wikipedia-namespace: examples where only one of those two non-Cat namespaces has the title in use must be much more numerous. Likewise, while the language of the first sentence does not rule out the more specific intention "confusion with content categories, whether existing or potential", the specificity of the example creates the presumption that the drafter didn't want to go against the pattern of disambiguating suffixes, where we will use The Pandoras rather than The Pandoras (band) at least until someone actually writes a stub on either an album, a film documentary, or a book that has the band's name as its title.
--Jerzy•t 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, Wikipedia guidelines are not polished by teams of legal drafters, and are not intend to withstand the degree of textual scrutiny to which you are submitting the document in question. Be gentle with the poor guideline :)

The existence of the magnificently-named Disambiguation (disambiguation) shows that disambiguation can many different meaning outside of Wikipedia. The prefix is therefore needed to distinguish the project category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Gentle", yes. As to "polished", i'd guess we're polishing with
OCD, and the cost/benefit ratio of such rewrites is truly onerous for me!
(I'm glad the double-colon version seems derailed, and i don't have a strong sense that the current discussion's change is important enuf that i will opine for renaming, but i've also lost any tendency toward an explicit "keep" opinion.)
--Jerzy•t 21:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename
Oculi (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Damn; I knew I should have trademarked "The Daily Disambig"! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Now that you've taken away the colon, I withdraw my earlier objection.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The Disambiguation (disambiguation) page BFG pointed out sold me that there could be confusion. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BHG ≠ The BFG :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... understandable mistake, given the "whizzpopper" issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 16 February 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:Dindori

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Dindori to Category:Cities and towns in Dindori district

Nominator's rationale: This

WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Upmerge per nom. I couldn't find anything else to add to it either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- I also cannot believe that a town of 17000 needs a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 15 February 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:Mathematical constructivism

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. There's no clear reason not to match the article name here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mathematical constructivism to Category:Constructivism (mathematics)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category name to the article name in line with speedy criterion C2D. Having the article and the category phrased differently doesn't really make a lot of sense. Here,

WP:CFDS, where a user suggested that instead the article should be renamed. I encouraged him to start a proposal to do so, but the user has not done so—so in the meantime I suggest the speedy criterion should be applied here. It can always be moved back if the article name ever changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

copy of speedy discussion

Constructivism (mathematics) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose -- Are you going out and finding every possible parenthetical title now? I think the trend should be the exact opposite. The article should be moved to "Mathematical constructionism" and the category should avoid parentheses. Greg Bard (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I think you should nominate the article for renaming. As long as the article stays where it is, the category name should follow. Advancing a broad "anti-parenthetical disambiguator" approach doesn't seem to me to be a sufficient reason to oppose a specific category rename when it meets the criteria. Your concern is really with the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For once I agree with Gregbard. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the category should, in this case, match the the title of the article (see
more common: "In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism is..." or "Mathematical constructivism is...". As things stand, rename per nom. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename The main article is
Constructivism (mathematics). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:42, 15 February 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:Udalguri

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Udalguri to Category:Cities and towns in Udalguri district

Nominator's rationale: This

WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Upmerge per nom. I looked, but couldn't find anything else that could go in this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename both Category:Populated places in Udalguri district, to match the norm of naming; so we need not know whether city or town status is granted to the various places. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a change would require a very broad nomination to cover everything in Category:Cities and towns in India by district. It has 644 subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 20 February 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:ASIMO

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Has been around for awhile now but still only contains ASIMO. Delete if nothing else can be added to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~but potential for a better category, possibly Category:Honda robots = Honda E series Honda U3-X Masahiro Mori Honda P series might fit.~~ Category:Robotics at Honda already exists. Delete.Mddkpp (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, noting that this used to contain just one other member: the now-deleted List of ASIMO public appearances. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no capacity for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. Steam5 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. No evidence of any capacity for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 16 February 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:Categories named after companies by industry

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: procedural close. No consensus to delete, and the new nomination overrides this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not seeing the point of this - a category of categories (that's essential a list then) - when all the contents will already be categorised by there company type eg: Category:Burmah-Castrol is a subcat of Category:BP which is a subcat of Category:Energy companies of the United Kingdom which obviously falls in Category:Energy companies, so why does it need to be in Category:Categories named after energy companies (of course it is named after an energy company - it is an energy company....)
I also need to point out that these are completely useless for page content that does not have it's own named category..
These seems to extend all the way up to Category:Eponymous categories which claims to be an administrative category and not part of wikipedia - yet I can see all its subcats -they're not hidden.
I'm simply not getting this - should all these be hidden or deleted or maybe its me ???Mddkpp (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This entire issue was just discussed in a recent nomination of Category:Eponymous categories. I'm not sure opening it again by nominating a subcategory is going to result in a different outcome. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it comes up a lot - It's not a big deal to me either way - but surely they should be hidden - is that easy to do - are they supposed to be hidden?Mddkpp (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the proposals in the previous nomination was to make them all hidden. There was not a consensus to do so, but from my reading it wasn't really the main focus of the discussion. Most participants focussed on deletion vs. retention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw this as it isn't really hurting me and it's probably going to be more constructive to do nothing . Unless someone else objects..Mddkpp (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are several users who object to the current set-up. :) I'm not terribly pleased with how it is, either. It's hard to know what to do when there's not yet a consensus on an issue like this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything starting with "Categories named after..." The last conversation convinced me it's not only that I'm dim witted, it's also that these cats also just don't make any sense. Also supportive of making them hidden insofar as that would at least make the claim true that it is administrative, though I don't see the admin value. At the very least,
WP:EPON should address handling "Categories named after..." RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Disclosure Just realized I created Category:Burmah-Castrol, although I don't think that matters in this case. 22:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If they can be made hidden then I then that is clearly what should be done. They shouldn't be appearing as 'navigation categorys' - is there any reason why all should be labled as hidden using the instructions provided at
Wikipedia:Hidden_categories#Hiding_categories or Help:Category#Hiding_categories
? I'm guessing that people have simply forgotten to do this.

(I can't see the use of these categories either - for maintenence or tracking.. however someones gone to the trouble of making a lot I suppose there is good reason - maybe it helps bots? who knows ??)

Question Can I assume that it is correct to add Template:Hidden category to any submember of these I find? That would be the sort of answer I am seeking. (no delete needed for me)Mddkpp (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should relist for clarity as to whether everything under Category:Eponymous categories should be hidden.Mddkpp (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite everything in the tree. Once you get down to Category:BP, I think these should be visible. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the "real" eponymous categories should be visible - it's the ones named "Category:categories named after .." that are technical/maintenance types and should be hidden.Mddkpp (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole "categories named after x" category trees are just not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per some comments above, I have nominated the whole structure of Category:Eponymous categories to be hidden cats at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 3. - jc37 00:59, 3 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:Virashaiva Literature

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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Virashaiva Literature to Category:Lingayat literature

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest that this is a preferred name for the category for two reasons: (1) the parent category and main article are Category:Lingayatism/Lingayatism and (2) the section in the article about this type of literature is "Lingayat literature". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 15 February 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:Syrian Malabar Nasrani

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Syrian Malabar Nasrani to Category:Saint Thomas Christians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. My understanding is that "Syrian Malabar Nasrani" is another name for Saint Thomas Christians. I'm not clear on what the intended distinction, if any, is between the two categories. If there is none, I suggest upmerging. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I note that the main article for
Syrian Malabar Nasrani is now a redirect. In the past there may have been other uses, but that is covered by a hatnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Support – this seems uncontroversial so I await detailed and extensive opposition.
Oculi (talk) 12:42, 15 February 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:First republics in Asia

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as "the first known Asian republics." This seems to be essentially a loose and arbitrary collection, since there is no cut-off date or other criteria for membership. We've got everything from Vaishali (ancient city), established in 6th century BCE, to the Tuvan People's Republic, established in 1921. Does it mean that each is the first republic to govern a separate given area of Asia? It's not clear. This is not part of an overall scheme of "first republics" categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or listify, per nom. 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. There seems to be no clear scope for this category, and no parallels for it . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Republics in Asia established before 1940, and purge if necessary. It is not clear to me what qualifies Vaishali (ancient city) as a republic, when the article refers to it having kings. Or just Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why 1940? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete - makes no sense - what purpose? Category:Republics in Asia would be ok - slight odd attempt at writing article through categorisation, or something.Mddkpp (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before deletion might be worth seeing if any are worthy of mention in Republic (ie Republic#History) that are not already inMddkpp (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this means "early" not "first" but that would still need to be defined. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It later occured to me that various new subcats of Category:Republics may be used full including "ancient republics" and others relating to 1800s (and 1900s) de-monarchisation in Europe etc may be good ideas - but I leave this to a proper historian.Mddkpp (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:29, 17 February 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.