Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6

Category:Monorchistic people

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 delete
WP:CSD#G7 ([1]). – Fayenatic London 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I suppose a link to monorchism will be helpful. This medical problem is not a defining characteristic of an individual. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 6 September 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.

Faculty by university in Sri Lanka

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) 17:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename following recent precedent for Thailand. There is no reason to use this term of American English for Sri Lankan academics. Further renames should follow. – Fayenatic London 19:19, 6 September 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:People from Arlington, Washington

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) 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or fewer entries ...William 17:52, 6 September 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:Tintin

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. It seems from the discussion that there might be scope for a wider renaming of this category and all is subcats, or for creating a new sub-cat Category:The Adventures of Tintin. Either way, feel free to bring this back to CfD for a further discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brought from speedy to full at suggestion. Propose renaming to follow the main article for the category, The Adventures of Tintin. If passed subcats would be speedied. The Bushranger One ping only 16:22, 6 September 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:Melvillians

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename When possible, titles of user categories should clearly indicate their nature. Moreover the rename would be consistent with the format of other categories in Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author. Pichpich (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This falls under the 'liking' category and isn't of aid to constructing the encylopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm tempted to agree, it would be a little unfair to target this one and not Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author as a whole. Pichpich (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The category was created to identify and bring together editors who are interested in working on all articles relating to him. Which makes it useful and worth keeping. "Editors who read" would not suffice. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After two months, it's not working yet. I suggest you have a look round WikiProject Novels (or go up from there to WP Literature) and start a Herman Melville task force instead. – Fayenatic London 18:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - since it's a single member category, who has commented here stating that they want to collaborate on such topics. - jc37 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let people create a properly named and clear category for those interested in studying Herman Melville. The category as currently named does not make it clear it is a user category, so we should delete it ASAP.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 11 September 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:Wolverine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep and rename to Category:Wolverine (comics). Timrollpickering (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT; category just contains ol' Wolvy and his Ultimate alterverse alter-ego which are already properly categorised under Category:Marvel Comics superheroes, along with the "titles" category which is already properly categorised under Category:Marvel Comics titles. The Bushranger One ping only 14:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Now that Fayenatic has populated the category, it appears to be sound. So I'm changing my !vote to 'Rename. Pichpich (talk) 08:59, 7 September 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.

Businesspeople in the oil 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: Rename for now. The oil and gas industry question is best handled in a separate nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Per the recently closed
    talk) 14:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename all. Much better title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Some categories will need the "industry" suffix; others won't, it shouldn't be used when it can be avoided but, as pointed out, this is a case where omitting it is awkward. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. At the same time, I am little bit confused. This proposal includes some oil industrialists' categories (British, Russian) but not category:American oil industrialists. I propose to upmerge it into Category:American oil businesspeople (or by the proposed name Category:American businesspeople in the oil industry). Otherwise, if kept, also other oil industrialists categories should be kept. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update/comment. I have realized since I made the nomination that we also have the natural gas industry with its separate category hierarchies. And obviously (at least from a Norwegian perspective) oil and gas go hand in hand. Unless we actively integrate this industry we'll be left with having to create a separate, albeit significantly smaller, hierarchy for it at some later time, or not. So, perhaps the smart thing at this point would be to merge the two industries, either as "oil and gas industry." Take a look at the content of
    talk) 08:06, 7 September 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:Sekoku no Ryuu Kishi

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. Misplaced article in category space. Creator has already
properly created an article. The Bushranger One ping only 17:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Improper use of article text in a Category page. The category consists solely of a user space page and an empty list (that has been nominated for deletion under
WP:CSD#A3. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:08, 6 September 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:Skillet members

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Skillet (band) and For King & Country (band) respectively and avoid any potential ambiguity. Pichpich (talk) 13:58, 6 September 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:Indian motor scooters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a completely unnecessary split of the existing Category:Motor scooters. No other scooters are grouped by country. Biker Biker (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Category:Motor scooters by country would be a reasonable hierarchy to create. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:41, 7 September 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:People from Grafton, New Hampshire

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) 16:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-article by-city cat, not much reasonable chance for expansion for this town of under 1500 people. The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 6 September 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:Alumni of the University of Malta

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; there seems to be a better case for a mass renaming in other direction. – Fayenatic London 09:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories of Category:Alumni by university or college in Europe except for those in the UK and Ireland use the "(X) alumni" format. As an independent nation, Malta doesn't seem to have a reason to be more like the UK and Ireland than all of the other countries in Europe.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Support; the argument that Malta has close ties to the UK is a reasonable enough concern, however other 'close ties' countries - Canada, Australia, and India, for instance - all uniformly and without exception use the standard "Foo alumni" format. There's no reason for Malta not to follow the standard for Europe or, for that matter, the standard of the rest of the world. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The convention is as stated by Bushranger, so I will not oppose this move ... but nor will I support it.
    The "Foo alumni" convention is a bad choice in terms of usability, because it places the crucial modifier word at the end of what can be a very long title. For example,
    WP:HOTCAT, because it would save editors from having to search through a long list of other categories relating to that university.
    I accept that "Foo alumni" is more common usage in many places, but "Alumni of Foo" is equally understandable and much better suited to the speed-reading habits of online usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose (restated from Speedy) The current form is just as easily readable if not more so ("...alumni" is a particular source of confusion when the institution name contains punctuation) and there's no need to change in the name of European wide conformity. We already have two other European countries that use a different form and should allow other national categories to go their own way where appropriate. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those "two other European countries" should also be renamed. Standardisation is professional and encyclopedic; letting them "go their own way" just gives
      the nabobs a chance to titter at how silly Wikipedia looks when they can't even keep their naming formats straight. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Bushranger, are you channelling the borg? What about local usage or comprehensibility or usability?
        I can see the case for consistency, and I usually favour it, but consistently enforcing a bad naming convention is silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Resistance is Futile. I'm not sure I'd call it "bad". It may not be preferable, but which is more silly: enforcing a 'second choice' system until they can all be moved to the first choice, in case that 'first choice' doesn't get passed, or having a mish-mash of category names under both systems? As I mentioned above, it can't be assured that a rename for all would be passed, which would, if it didn't, leave us back at square one with the mish-mash. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Umm, we don't have a mish-mash, we just have a grand total of two systems (shock horror!) reflecting variations in usage. Similar variations exist in many other category trees. If this one is going to be standardised, let's standardise it to the more usable format. (I don't see anyone arguing that "Foo alumni" is better). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will. It puts the school at the front, making it easier to scan the list of subcategories when you bring up a container category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – 'Alumni of' is vastly preferable to horrible concatenations such as
    Oculi (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge one way or the other. That said, I would go with the current proposal, but I would ask those who have said oppose to reconsider. What they are currently advocating is leaving duplicate categories. There is no reason to do that. Do you mean reverse merge or are you advocating that we leave duplicate categories?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there's no duplicate category. The current content of the target is a category redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Most of the categories use "Foo alumni", and because the University or college is listed first, then one does not have to use a default sortkey for those categories; whereas, when "Alumni" is first, a default sortkey would have to be used on every category to sort by the university or college name. I have cleaned up many categories, and the default sortkey is not used regularly by editors, so it just makes more work for those of us who like organized categories to have to add default sortkeys all the time. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:56, 27 September 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:User en-2.5

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) 16:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Joke category. "This user has significantly improved his/her vocabulary and thinks he/she is able to contribute with an advanced level of English, but may actually not." Previous similar babel categories have been deleted, see here. Does not benefit the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humorous Categories such as Category:Rouge editors seems to be permitted. ibicdlcod (talk) 08:54, 6 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_6&oldid=1074810106"