Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 4

< March 3	March 5 >

March 4

Category:People navigational boxes

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. As Mr. template category, I'm surprised I hadn't seen this one. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People navigational boxes to Category:People and person navigation templates

Nominator's rationale: Merge, as this category now subsumed by Category:People and person navigation templates. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; seems "people" is being used as "persons" anyway here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (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:Mormon universities and colleges

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. Kbdank71 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mormon universities and colleges to Category:Latter Day Saint universities and colleges

Category:Mormon education to Category:Latter Day Saint education

Category:Mormon schools to Category:Latter Day Saint schools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Mormon" would work fine if we were only dealing with organizations affiliated with the main Latter Day Saint group, the LDS Church or "Mormon" Church. However, Graceland College is in the "universities and colleges" category b/c it is affiliated with the Community of Christ, and once multiple "Mormon" sects are involved it's more appropriate and less ambiguous to use "Latter Day Saint". See the discussion in Mormon, Latter Day Saint, Latter Day Saint movement, etc. I've also nominated the parent "education" category for similar reasons. The "schools" category only now contains LDS Church schools, but since the potential is there that non-LDS Church schools could be added and for consistency, I thought it would be better to rename now. Unrelated CFD for first category was held on 2006 Dec 30. Notified creators with {{cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 4 March 2008 (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:Puebla Fútbol Club footballers

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: redirect (already done). Kbdank71 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Puebla Fútbol Club footballers to Category:Puebla Futbol Club players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category name is redundant (a football club's players are naturally footballers), and the category name should match the article name (Puebla Futbol Club). Jogurney (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An outside voice here and here is what is redundant about this nomination is that you are basically saying the same thing in either category. If they are to the Category:Puebla Futbol Club players, it is basically the same as having them in the current category. Mr. C.C. (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, if it's a problem, than just create the new category and redirect the old one to it. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I was concerned about redundancy because the category name is essentially "football club footballers", while a switch to "football club players" would not be redundant. I didn't realize it was okay to simply create a redirect, but per your suggestion, I will go ahead and do that. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But having a category called Category:Puebla Futbol Club players is redundant because we know they are players of that team. Mr. C.C. (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? There could be any number of categories about Puebla Futbol Club (assuming that there are a sufficient number of notable articles to be categorized): managers, chairmen, seasons, etc. Jogurney (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not debating that there could be other categories about this team. But saying players or footballers in the categories say the same thing. Both mean it's a category about players of that team. You wouldn't put managers in a category about players hence why renaming isn't really necessary. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Puebla FC players, as the article should be at Puebla FC, as it is commonly known and similar to various other teams where the FC isn't expanded, e.g., Aston Villa F.C., etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could have just put up a speedy renaming request. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Puebla FC players, per Carlossuarez46. In any case, why would you drop the accent in "fútbol". If the Spanish word is going to be used, I think it should be spelt correctly. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added soft redirects to Category:Puebla FC players per the suggestions here. Thank you for your help. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2008 (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.

Pro wrestling alumni

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. Kbdank71 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I've tried to make a couple of test nominations, found here and here in an attempt to build consensus on them. Results were mixed, based largely on the size of the promotion involved and because, although I indicated that they were test nominations, some promotions weren't nominated. To reiterate my reasoning from the initial nomination, We frown in most cases on categorizing by current and former status. We don't appear to categorize any other sports or entertainment performers on the basis of their former associations with teams or companies. Baseball players, for instance, are in the players category for each of their teams and not in any "former players" structure. These categories also implicate WP:OC#performer by performance in the same way that categories for actors by TV series cats do. Wrestlers can and do perform for a variety of promotions and categorizing all of them on each wrestler's article leads to category clutter. I suggest listify and delete. Otto4711 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to "(X) wrestlers". I'm trying to convince myself that these are more like TV shows than sports, but I can't. Despite the perception that these events are scripted (and I don't actually know that all of them are), they seem a lot more like athletes than actors to me. But I do not like the living/dead categorization, so using "wrestlers" would be a lot better than alumni, which is used for athletes only in some junior hockey categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of the reason I see a difference between these and athlete categories and see them as more akin to performer categories is the rapidity that wrestlers can move from one promotion to another. Look at someone like Sean Waltman. He's in six of these things, along with two additional "teams and stables" subcats, and was in at least one of the previously deleted alumni categories. Most athletes don't AFAIK change teams that often, whereas actors and other performers are in a large number of films, shows, performance venues etc. Add to that the fact that independent wrestlers can come in on very short term contracts with various promotions and technically be categorized as either "alumni" of or "wrestlers" with the promotion and these really become problematic in terms of being defining of the person. Otto4711 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alumni categories are good to have because some of the articles ending up having more for the alumni and rosters than actual article information like history of the promotion depending on the article. If we are nominating alumni categories, I do see that the ECW and WCW alumni are nominated for deletion, but are not on the list. Unless there is a better alternative whether it be a list or whatever, than alumni categories will have to do. Why are alumni categories only now being nominated for deletion when they have been around for a number of years? Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added ECW to the list as it was tagged already. WCW is on the list, 7th from the bottom. I guess I'm not understanding your comment. There are articles on the promotions and, in some cases, separate list articles for the roster. I'm unclear as to how the existence of the categories is contingent on the content of the articles. As for why now, consensus can change and the longevity of a particular category is not a bar to discussing it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the fact there are articles on promotions. I am talking about the fact that the roster or alumni lists can be longer than other parts of the article. Mr. C.C. (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the roster or alumni section of the article becomes overlong then it may be split off into a list article per WP:SUMMARY. Indeed, list articles for a number of thes promotions already exist. Otto4711 (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noticed a list ECW, TNA, WCW, WWE, but not any other. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After doing a random sample of a few articles, it does not appear that membership in these companies/leagues is in and of itself defining. So it does not need to be categorized. Maintaining lists in the various articles seems more appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (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.

Meteorological categories

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. Kbdank71 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Mostly grammatical tweaks and plurals - the last listed category should be changed per all other categories in Category:Companies by industry. By definition, a company is private so the word "private" isn't needed in the category name. These are all subcategories of Category:Meteorological institutions and stations. Graham87 10:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Changed some capitalisation and wording per comments below. Graham87 03:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I've made another case change. Graham87 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You'll need to change all of the capital M's to lower case to conform with the naming guidelines. Other than that I just have a question about Category:Meteorological institutions in or affiliated with Universities: could that not be simplified to Category:Meteorological institutions affiliated with Universities? I should think that would encompass both groupings. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that created these categories and I have no objection to renaming them like suggested if it conforms more to wiki rules. However, renaming of categories usually does not imply that the items with that category are redirected to the new category automatically (as a link) but are still related to the old category where there is a message telling to go to the new category. So, if Graham87 want to do the renaming, he should go to each article having the old categories and change it to the new ones afterward. Pierre cb (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your concerns correctly -- not to worry, nothing is lost when categories are renamed as all of the articles have their categories edited to reflect the change. As category creator, what do you think about my suggestion re Category:Meteorological institutions affiliated with Universities? Cgingold (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.Pierre cb (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me about the proposed changes. Does the nomination text need to be modified, or does the closing admin take this discussion into account and add the correct cats to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working? Graham87 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I believe you can adjust your proposal. Just go through and change all of the M's, and on the other issue I think you should probably do a ~~"strike-thru"~~ "strike-through" of your original wording and follow that with the new version, perhaps adding a brief notation that you've amended your proposal. Cgingold (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I dislike strike-through for the reasons given at Wikipedia:Accessibility so I didn't use it here. I did however put a note here stating that I made the changes which should be enough - anyone who wants to know the exact details can find them in the page history. Graham87 03:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Universities" should be lower-case. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right -- can't believe I missed that. Cgingold (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Graham87 04:14, 12 March 2008 (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.

Football coaches

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/rename per nom. Kbdank71 15:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Northern Arizona Lumberjacks Head Football Coaches to Category:Northern Arizona Lumberjacks football coaches

Category:Weber State Wildcats Head Football Coaches to Category:Weber State Wildcats football coaches

Propose renaming Category:Northern Colorado Bears Head Football Coaches to Category:Northern Colorado Bears football coaches

Category:North Carolina Central Eagles Head Football Coaches to Category:North Carolina Central Eagles football coaches

Category:Cal Poly Mustangs Head Football Coaches to Category:Cal Poly Mustangs football coaches

Nominator's rationale: Merge / Rename as appropriate. To fix capitalization and to conform with standard format of parent Category:College football coaches. No distinction is typically made between head coaches and other coaches in these categories and I see no reason to depart from this with these recently created categories. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Absolutely. Coaches change affiliations within programs all the time, so this distinction is too hard to track.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:LSU Tigers football coaches has a subcategory for assistant coaches, which I think would probably be appropriate accross the board if there were enough pages so that separating them from head coaches would improve navigation, no? VegaDark (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not worth it. I'd merge that one too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (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:4chan 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: delete. Kbdank71 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Having a category to index 4chan (fair use) related images seems unnecessary, also no articles use this category. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (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:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences

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. Kbdank71 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences to Category:Members of the National Academy of Sciences

Nominator's rationale: not that there's anything wrong with it, per se....but surely someone can come up with title that's a bit more succinct. emerson7 01:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Technically, the foreign members, what most places call "associate members" or something of the sort, they just call "associates". I think we can ignore that non-standard wording, as long as we explain it. I have gotten quite tired of typing in that whole link. DGG (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Associate members are still members. No big deal. Dr.K. (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you please vote on a similar nomination here. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (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:Defunct Norwegian athletics clubs

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. Kbdank71 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Defunct Norwegian athletics clubs to Category:Defunct athletics clubs in Norway

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match recently renamed parent cat (Category:Athletics clubs in Norway). I noticed this one a couple of days after the original nomination. Marginally speedy, I suppose. Neier (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Makes eminent sense. Dr.K. (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (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.