[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 29

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

edit

Category:American aviation films

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The nominator mentions a number of miscategorised articles, which can be dealt with through normal editorial decisions. If the result of fixing the miscategorisations significantly alters the viability of the category, feel free to promptly renominate this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American aviation films to Category:Aviation films and Category:American films
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a minor intersection compared to some other subcategories of Category:American films by genre, and also a somewhat nebulously defined one. Is Independence Day -really- an aviation film? Team America: World Police? Really? Best, I think, to have this upmerged to its parents, and the films in it (properly) categorised in both if and as necessary. The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 29 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.

Racing teams

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Formula One entrants to Category:Formula One teams
Propose renaming Category:Formula Two entrants to Category:Formula Two teams
Propose renaming Category:FIA Sportscar Championship entrants to Category:FIA Sportscar Championship teams
Nominator's rationale: These moves would conform to the remainder of Category:Auto racing teams by series. An earlier speedy move of some others sparked discussion that leaned torwards "teams" as being preferred for all, but wasn't 100% conclusive, so I'm nominating these for full discussion. The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- but purge of individuals, whos should be categoried as "Formula one drivers" or some other category, according to their role. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This happened to the Can-Am series and I ended up both supporting and opposing it there (I guess the nominators rationale was partially my fault :/ ), but I think much more fleshed out categories like Formula 1 this isn't a good idea. Mainly due to the fact that not everyone who enters Formula 1 (especially in the early years) counts a team. If you change the category to team we'll have to remove the other entrants who don't qualify and then leave them without a proper category or a new set of sparsely populated categories that will probably end up being nominated for deletion themselves. --Sabre ball t c 19:19, 30 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:Tier 1b

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: *Rename to Category:Tier 1b program per current convention. Feel free to renom for a more expanded name. - jc37 04:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tier 1b to Category:Tier 1b program
Nominator's rationale: Another situation where the name of the category should deviate from the main article name for clarity and disambiguation. Just "Tier 1b" is rather unexplanatory and ambiguous, and as part of the tree at Category:Human spaceflight programmes, including "program" fits the established pattern of the tree as well. The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 29 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:Environmental issues with conservation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Environmental conservation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Environmental issues with conservation to Category:Conservation issues
Nominator's rationale: As the editor that created this category I am not happy with the name. It is a sort of "ugly" roundabout way of saying "conservation issue". It is sort of like a double negative but in this case it is a negative cancelling out a positive! Renaming it will make it match Category:Environmental issues and List of conservation issues, and a potential Conservation issue article. Is a speedy rename possible here or shall we wait for 10,000 editors to put in their 2 cents worth? (...that would make it worth $200.) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:38, 29 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:T. Damodaran

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:T. Damodaran to Category:Screenplays by T. Damodaran
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is categorizing films that were written by T. Damodaran. I suggest renaming it to match the format of Category:Screenplays by author. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 29 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.

Pupils of people

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz to article List of pupils of Heinrich Schütz
Convert Category:Pupils of Antoine-Jean Gros to article List of pupils of Antoine-Jean Gros
Convert Category:Pupils of Jacques-Louis David to article List of pupils of Jacques-Louis David
Nominator's rationale: Convert to lists. We have a general convention not to categorize people by who they were a student or pupil of. Such information is generally contained in lists, so I suggest converting these categories into lists. We have done this in the past for categories for students of Frédéric Chopin, Bach and Sweelinck, other musicians, F. F. Bruce, and others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schütz - converted as creator of cat and most of the bios I have done as requested, but I actually don't really see the need to delete the cat. The rationales given aren't convincing - what does it serve to delete student of Chopin from the footer of Pauline Viardot for example? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could quickly get out of hand—first someone would categorize pupils, then someone would start a tree for those who collaborated with a particular individual, and so forth. The endless potential is the main reason that we avoid categorizing individuals by their connection to other individuals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem is that depending on how we set the bar to qualify as a pupil, a person could be in a large number of pupil categories. On the other hand most people are going to have a fairly limited number of pupils, so it is just easier to create lists than make categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with having a list as well of course, but I also don't see the need for removing the cat. Who they have been a pupil of is one of the defining characteristics for many artists. It's not like every professor a student has ever had at his alma mater would be included, most artists have only been the pupil of very few artists, and only a few artists have a sufficient number of notable pupils to merit a category. Fram (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We have alumni categories, so that the principle of categorising people accoring to how they were taught is established. The problem may be the extent to which the pupil was taught by the master painter, musician, etc. This will vary from some one who had regualr lesson at one extreme to some one who attended the odd master class. Where to draw the line is a POV issue. Perhpas we should Listify for now. In a list article, it may be possible to find a means of distinguishing regular students (who should be in a category) from occasional ones who should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the alumni category analogy fails on two grounds. First off, being an alumni of a place is going to be notable to any person who is so, but while Barack Obama as a graduate may be a point to make about Harvard Law School, Henry B. Eyring is unlikely to seem notable to Harvard Business School itself, and he is far more notable than the majority of its alumni who have articles in wikipedia. On the other hand, since a teacher has much stricter limits on the number of students they can teach both at any given time and has an added limited lifetime (while Harvard is compared to some schools young, and Harvard Business School is quite a bit younger than Harvard) so there are outward limits. I guess I can see the argument for these categories. I also stick by my earlier assertion that the number of people someone may be a pupil of is less limited than the number of schools they can attend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retraction of vote on further thought I think that we should keep these categories. Jaques-Louis David had a formal workshop in which he trained his students. I think we should create a super category to put these categories in. We also should establish the following rules. 1-The pupil role needs to be of a noticable duration. 2- in almost all cases if the pupil/teacher relationship occured within a larger institution, that institution should be the basis of categorization and not the pupil/student relationship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I noticed that I had not actually voted, so now I will. The pupil-student relationship is clearly documented in the arts. A lot of artists are trained by masters, as opposed to in colleges or universities. This was especially true before 1950 and still does occur. These categories are all large enough to justify. If the category is potentially small a list probably would be preferable, but in one of these cases there are over 50 people. At that level The workshop connection is more important for the pupil than the student, and editors creating new articles will find it easier to edit the category than go hunt down a list and add the person to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Where reliable sources refer to an artist as "pupil of …", that becomes an identifying category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:36, 2 April 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:Female pornographic film actors

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. No full consensus for renaming - no prejudice against a prompt renomination for renaming if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 5 April 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:Early Settlers of Michigan

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People of the Michigan Territory. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 7 April 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:Defunct companies

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 9 April 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.

Defunct Museums

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 14 April 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:Highlander immortals

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Consensus to upmerge to Category:Highlander characters and Category:Fictional immortals. The Helpful One 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Highlander immortals to Category:Highlander characters and Category:Fictional immortals
Nominator's rationale: All of these characters are also in Category:Highlander characters. There are not so many of them that they need to be divided in this WP:CRUFT manner.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:49, 29 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:Sesame Street Muppet monsters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. If the category can be filled in an expanded, and sourced, manner in the future distinguishing "monsters" from Statler and Waldorf (whatever the recepients of their heckling might think!), no prejudice against recreation, or of the creation of Catgeory:Muppet monsters if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Sesame Street Muppet monsters to Category:Sesame Street Muppet characters
Nominator's rationale: While I support keeping the humans and Muppets separate, there aren't so many Muppet characters on the show that we need to divide them in this WP:CRUFT manner.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:47, 29 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.

General Hospital families

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Spencer family (General Hospital) to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Scorpio/Jones family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Quartermaine family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Hardy/Webber family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Corinthos family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Cassadine family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Baldwin family to Category:General Hospital characters
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many articles here that they need to be categorized in this WP:CRUFT manner. The "family" tree should be reserved for real people, such as the Category:Baldwin acting family. See below for more soap opera family categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:34, 29 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.

Current heads of federal subjects of Russia

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 April 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.

Verbotene Liebe families

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lahnstein family to Category:Verbotene Liebe characters
Propose merging Category:Brandner family to Category:Verbotene Liebe characters
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many characters that they need to be subdivided in this WP:CRUFT manner. The "family" categories should be reserved for real people. See below for several similar One Life to Live categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should reserve family categories for real people. If the families within these shows are so notable people want to differentiate who is in which, and article that does that is much more useful than a category. The reason for family categories is that they link close relatives who do divergent enough things to make a joint article impracticle. This does not happen when you have people in a fictional work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge per nominator and per John Pack Lambert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 29 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:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. It appears that there may be a consensus for upmerging all the national sub-categories of Category:Gondola lifts, but since only one of those categories was nominated here, that cannot be an outcome of this discussion. Editors who want to pursue the idea of upmerging all the Gondola-lifts-in-Foo categories should feel free to open a new discussion on that idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong to Category:Gondola lifts in China
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. Recently created category split from the China category. The HK category contains only one article and will never have more. There are several gondola in China that need articles, so that category has potential to be populated. Gondolas do not present any political issue where separation makes sense, so an upmerge from the territory to the country is a natural fit. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no article or article request on any gondola lift in China. We don't merge categories of different countries, say the Isle of Man or Gibraltar into the United Kingdom, just because there are too few articles. Jeffrey (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: There are currently 10 subcategories under Category:Gondola lifts. Australia‎ (1 P), Ecuador‎ (1 P), Germany (2 P), Hong Kong‎ (1 P), Japan‎ (13 P), Malaysia‎ (2 P), Singapore‎ (1 P), Switzerland‎ (2 P), Taiwan‎ (2 P), and United States‎ (3 P). We may perhaps merge the Singapore and Malaysian ones, or the Swiss one into the German one, too, if we accept Schmucky's proposal. Jeffrey (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are the same country. HK and China are. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • But I don't think what you said is true as a default case. This is not a subject for which there is a "normally" in English—it always depends on the subject and upon context. The English language has a lot of traditional grammar and usage "rules", but this certainly is not one of them! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my understand the usual usage of the English word 'country' covers dependencies, and dependencies aren't normally considered part of the metropolitan country. French overseas departments may appear to be exceptions. Yet French overseas departments aren't dependencies. But yes your understanding could be different from the mainstream. Jeffrey (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: There is no precedence on Wikipedia to merge HK's topical categories into the Chinese counterparts. The Wikipedia precedence is to make HK's categories subcats of the corresponding by country categories for the same topic. The same rule applies to all dependencies. Jeffrey (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bold assertion. Sorry, but it isn't true. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
But being a separate customs territory is irrelevant to a gondola. There are more gondola in the rest of China, that is the category with the potential to avoid SMALLCAT. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
You sure do know a lot about cans and cants and precedence, 30 day old account. CfD makes bold umbrella decisions quite often. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Merge with the China category (first preference) or upmerge to the main gondola lifts category (second preference). I agree with Schmucky's rationale that China is a better category than Hong Kong, but the category isn't necessary yet until articles on the other gondola lifts are actually written. Once a few more appear, then they would each belong in the Gondola lifts in China cat. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     19:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one article in the HK category was in the China category yesterday. I'm surprised there aren't other articles, quick research showed me China has the top two gondola lifts by elevation in the world. My time for writing articles currently is non-existent but it'd be easy to fill a cat there. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Agreed that the China category is certainly viable, however my understanding of categories is that they're intended to be navigation aids more than topic tags. The question is whether the articles should exist before creating the category, or whether the category is okay with just one article. I'm not sure, so my first preference is closer to the status quo (putting the article in the China gondolas category) . – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fairly obvious strawman, even for you Jeffrey. Viability is determined by assessment against our policies and guidelines, nobody suggested otherwise. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     23:26, 2 April 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:Unorganized areas in Quebec

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Quebec to Category:Unorganized territories in Quebec
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Abitibi-Témiscamingue to Category:Unorganized territories in Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Bas-Saint-Laurent‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Bas-Saint-Laurent‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Capitale-Nationale to Category:Unorganized territories in Capitale-Nationale
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Côte-Nord to Category:Unorganized territories in Côte-Nord
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Lanaudière‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Lanaudière‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Laurentides‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Laurentides‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Mauricie‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Mauricie
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Outaouais to Category:Unorganized territories in Outaouais‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean to Category:Unorganized territories in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean‎
Nominator's rationale: These are called territoires non organisés in French, and in English "unorganized territories". In the text of articles in this category, the term "unorganized territory" is used (I didn't check all of them, though). There is an unorganized territory article, though it is mostly about the US. There is an article specific to Canada that is titled unorganized area (Canada), I don't know if "area" is used in some other province of Canada; it's not used for Quebec. P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that would seem to be "per nom" since I just supported the nom. Aufrette's most recent statement makes it even more clear that the initial nom is correct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 5 April 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:Cramer family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cramer family to Category:One Life to Live characters
Nominator's rationale: This is the third in the series of families for One Life to Live. I'm making this a merge nomination like my votes below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:22, 29 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.

Buchanan Family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:One Life to Live characters. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 5 April 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.

Lord Family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:One Life to Live characters. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 5 April 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:2012 in UK politics

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. It's possible that the entire tree should be renamed to "United Kingdom" (spelled out), but if desired that should be another full AfD with all the cats under Category:Years in British politics. Until then, this has consensus that it should conform to the rest. The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2012 in UK politics to Category:2012 in British politics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy as below

Category names should be concise as possible whilst avoiding abbreviations. "UK" is very seldom used in category names which would leave "2012 in United Kingdom politics" or "2012 in politics in the United Kingdom" both of which are very unwieldy and do not add anything to "2012 in British politics". One can see the need for "United Kingdom Acts of Parliament" to clearly distinguish from the 18th century Parliament of Great Britain. The proposed name matches its sibling categories Category:2012 in British music, Category:2012 in British sport and Category:2012 in British television all of which use the naming conventions of their particular trees. Instead of saying "we ought to be renaming the older cats in this direction" and creating the new category with a different name, Mais oui! should have nominated those categories for renaming. Tim! (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'British' and 'United Kingdom' are not synonyms, as you know very well. UK or United Kingdom is correct and inclusive. "British" is most certainly not. It is highly unwise of Wikipedia to allow so many sectarian category names: we are explicitly advised to avoid controversial category names, but some people just go out of their way to be provocative. "British" should not be allowed in any cat names that are meant to denote a UK-related cat. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:46, 29 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:Automated Office Management

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Automated Office Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:19, 29 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:Deceased Hong Kong actors

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Deceased Hong Kong actors to Category:Hong Kong actors
Propose merging Category:Deceased TVB actors to Category:TVB actors
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Based on lots of previous discussions, we don't divide divide people by occupation categories into "living" and "deceased" (or "current" vs. "former") subcategories. If we did so for all categories it would be a real pain because it would require many categories to be updated when a person dies and constant patrolling of the categories to see if it includes any since-deceased people. These can simply be upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought: I thought it would work, because they're not acting anymore, but they're still famous. I think it would save space, since they're not alive and we're not looking for them it would save time by not confusing with alive actors and deceased actors. People might think it wastes time with the confusion. If it is a deceased category, then we would know that we shouldn't look there for the living actor.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought 2: It wouldn't cause any trouble for you, other people would be willing to sort the categories.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom we just don't split occupational categories like this into living/dead; as Good Olfactory says, the maintenance that would be required across thousands of categories if we did would be dreadful. There is no reason to make these categories exceptions to the long-established general rule. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a bad idea. The "there not acting any more but they're still famous" claim has two major flaws. 1- the rule in wikipedia is not "fame" it is "notability". While most famous people will pass notability rules (there may be some exceptions, but they are rare) many notable people would not pass fame rules. The bigger problem though is the "there not acting any more" claim. We also have a large numer of retired actors who either went to other careers or who just decided they were too old, did not need to earn more money/who knows what. Yet we do not have Category:Former actors. We strive for categories to be a in/not in set of criteria where once someone is in that category they are never out. Thus we highly discorage former, current, present, deceased and similar categories. The acceptions are the about 3 Category:Living people and closely related categories that exist because of special concerns related to the biographies of living people categories. Also we have a set of categories such as Category:Former Muslims and Category:Former Christians. However even these are supposed to only be used for those who become athiest/agnostic/secular humanist/non-religious. If someone converts to another religion they should be put in a convert category. For articles on places and things we allow a bit more in the way of categories like Category:defunct universities and colleges in New York. I think the reasoning is because in theory universities do not have to die, but all people die. I am not sure we have ever really figured out why we have the defunct categories and if it makes sense to have some of the ones we do. That is a discussion that is long overdue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought 3: Some people would be willing to.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee of that. Users come and go in editing. Users forget about required tasks. Users lose track of the thousands of categories that would need updating. And so on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would work for actors, but not politians or some other historical figure. There's a distinction politicians can be deceased without a category, because politicians are more historical. Often actors need the category to differentiate, people will often know that a politician is dead through research, but people rarely research actors if it's work related, they might be not as well known to everyone.It would help with identifying. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your claim that it would work for actors but not others. Acting as a profession has been around for a long time too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general public of Wikipedia would be interested in whether or not someone is alive by what category the article's in.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they would be, perhaps not—but even if they would be, it's not an answer to the other concerns raised above about developing this type of scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:58, 3 April 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.

Florida mayors

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Cooper City, Florida to Category:People from Cooper City, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Naples, Florida to Category:People from Naples, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Ocala, Florida to Category:People from Ocala, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Ocean Breeze Park, Florida to Category:People from Martin County, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Nominator's rationale: One-entry categories of cities that are of a population and geographical size that being mayor of them does not make one sufficently notable for an article in and of itself, and are, therefore, unlikely to be expanded. Could be argued to fall under the WP:SMALLCAT exemption but given the above, I believe these are best folded back into the parent categories, without prejustice against recreation if additional mayors of these cities become notable enough for articles. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 29 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:Kent County Early Settlers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Michigan early settlers. There are other proposals on the fate of Category:Michigan early settlers, but there is clearly a consensus not to divide "early settlers" by county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Kent County Early Settlers to Category:Michigan early settlers
Propose merging Category:Saginaw County Early Settlers to Category:Michigan early settlers
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT. Small categories with little chance for expansion, no established category tree, no need to be seperated out from the parent cat. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 29 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:United States Early Settlers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:American pioneers. Editors may wish to further sub-categorise to Category:American pioneers, but there seems to be no dissension from the nominator's contention that these categories are duplicates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:United States Early Settlers to Category:American pioneers
Nominator's rationale: This was objected to at a speedy for decapitalising with the comment that it should be looked at more thoroughly, as there wasn't a United States at the time some of the people here were doing their settling. Aside from that, the distinction between "pioneers" and "early settlers" seems a bit dubious. Propose upmerging to the parent American Pioneers category accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_29&oldid=1085527038"