Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3

Gender-specific college athletic teams

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 per nom except Clemson and Texas Tech. The latter two should be: renamed Category:Clemson University athletics to Category:Clemson Tigers and left intact, respectively. Ruslik_ Zero 13:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:University of Central Missouri athletics to Category:Central Missouri Mules and Jennies
Propose renaming Category:Centenary Gentlemen to Category:Centenary Gentlemen and Ladies
Propose renaming Category:Chattanooga Mocs athletics to Category:Chattanooga Mocs and Lady Mocs
Propose renaming Category:Clemson University athletics to Category:Clemson Tigers and Lady Tigers
Propose renaming Category:Furman Paladins athletics to Category:Furman Paladins and Lady Paladins
Propose renaming Category:University of Georgia athletic teams to Category:Georgia Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs
Propose renaming Category:University of Hawaii athletics to Category:Hawaii Warriors and Rainbow Wahine
Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech University athletics to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters
Propose renaming Category:LSU Tigers athletics to Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers
Propose renaming Category:University of Mississippi athletics to Category:Ole Miss Rebels and Lady Rebels
Propose renaming Category:Mississippi State University athletics to Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs
Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma State University athletics to Category:Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls
Propose renaming Category:Penn State Nittany Lions to Category:Penn State Nittany Lions and Lady Lions
Propose renaming Category:Southern Miss Athletics to Category:Southern Miss Golden Eagles and Lady Eagles
Propose renaming Category:Tennessee Volunteers to Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols
Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders to Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders
Propose renaming Category:UMass Minutemen to Category:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen
Propose renaming Category:Washington College athletics to Category:Washington College Shoremen and Shorewomen
Nominator’s rationale: In this nomination, we renamed most of the college team umbrella categories to lose the words “university” and “athletics.” The Achilles heel of this plan is the small set of teams that have different names for their male and female teams. My suggestion is to name the categories after both teams. I’m open to other suggestions that remove the word “athletics.” A couple of notes: I'm not 100% sure how prevalent Clemson and Furman's "lady" team names are any more, and Hawaii is off-the-chain bizarre on this score.— Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I just looked as one sample head article, Ole Miss Rebels. With only one reference to a reliable source, it seems to me to fall well shot of the general notability requiements of WP:N. It's not really a CFD issue, but to what extent are these we just categorising hordes of non-notables here? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The Ole Miss Rebels are one of the most storied college teams in America, BHG. However, the trend on Wikipedia to create pages about the teams across sports is a relatively new one, so it doesn't surprise me that some of those articles are poorly sourced. Regardless, the subjects definitely have significant merit.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support most, oppose Texas Tech. The only Texas Tech women's program that uses "Lady Raiders" is basketball; all other women's programs use "Red Raiders". The Texas Tech women's basketball category structure can be kept with "Lady Raiders". — Dale Arnett ( talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I have no objection to removing Texas Tech from the list of changes, though I'll wait to see if anyone objects. Honestly, some of the ones that are just adding "Lady" to the front could probably get by with just the men's team name. I'm more concerned with LA Tech, OSU, Hawaii, Central Michigan, Tennessee, and Washington College, since their names are so different.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I added Centenary to the nomination. That school consistently uses "Gentlemen" and "Ladies" for its respective men's and women's teams; see the school's official athletics site. — Dale Arnett ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (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 by province in Finland

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 Category:People from Lapland Province to Category:People from Lapland (Finland), and Delete the others (per nominator). I'm closing this discussion two hours early, but since 4 editors support the nomination and nobody opposes it, consenus seems clear. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting:
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The Provinces of Finland were abolished on January 1, 2010, and three of them (Eastern, Southern and Western Finland) were short-lived bureaucratic constructions. The regional and municipal categories underneath can be kept. Lapland and Åland were both provinces and regions, and they still exist as regions. Lapland can refer to many different areas, so I think we should specify it as Finnish Lapland. -- Silvonen ( talk) 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I think it would be enough to categorize people by municipalities and regions. If we want to categorize them by provinces, the pre-1997 provinces would have more historical value than the latest provinces, but such categories would be difficult to maintain. The current categorization is actually somewhat anachronistic, as many of the categorized people died before 1997. -- Silvonen ( talk) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (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.

National Basketball Association owners

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 to merge. The discussion is divided on whether subcategorizing by team helps navigation. A list can of course be created and can co-exist with the categories. Jafeluv ( talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It probably is a defining characteristic of most of the owners that they own a sports team, so I don't see any problem with the existence of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:National Basketball Association owners. However, sub-dividing that owners category by which team they owned is unnecessary (there's no sign of the category getting over-large). Sports clubs are not bought and sold every day like commodities; in most cases, ownership seems to be something which last for five years or more, sometimes a lot more. So for most individual clubs, the list of owners will be short enough to make a small section in the head article on the team. Making a sub-category for each of these small sections just creates lots of small categories, splitting up ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:National Basketball Association owners into tiny categories which impede navigation rather than helping it. (Currently, there are 45 articles on NBA owners in the 13 sub-categories, an average of less than 4 per team).
See also related discussion on the upmerger of the one sub-category of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:National Basketball Association owners which is not included in this nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 30#Category:Milwaukee_Bucks_owners. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:41, 3 January 2010 (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:All-electric vehicles

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 to merge; obviously this needs more thought and work to make it intelligible to the average reader. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:All-electric vehicles to Category:Battery electric vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Merge redundant cat. I suppose the former might include some cars which the latter would omit (say, a supercapacitor-powered car), but it's redundant for now. Dethroned Buoy ( talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • There are battery-less solar vehicles, and have been for many years (as they are not designed for use outside of research...) they do not store electricity, just use it, and there are also broadcast energy vehicles, that also do not store energy, just use it. We probably have articles on space elevator demonstrators, that are all electric and do not store propulsion power either. 76.66.197.17 ( talk) 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I think you're missing a point there, though space elevators may have their own category (which they don't since the category you point to isn't a space elevator category since it isn't called Category: Space elevators), this category is a by-power-system category, and the category you point out has nothing to do with power systems. (ie. some space elevators are not electric) Further, why create another category when this will do as named? Especially when separate categories may be small. 76.66.197.17 ( talk) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • "Vertical transportation devices" is where the article on " space elevators" is, so it's the "space elevator" category unless a more specific cat is created. Anyway, there are no space elevators in the "all-electric" category, and any electric space elevators can be put into an "electric space elevators" subcat of "space elevators", should the latter be created. This category is redundant to "electric vehicles" anyway (it's not immediately clear to a casual browser what the difference should be between "electric vehicles" and "all-electric vehicles"). Why is "all-electric vehicles" a good category for space elevators anyway? "All-electric" is a very small cat anyway once you recat the articles that are incorrectly in there. Dethroned Buoy ( talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If the category is meant to cover vehicles powered by electricity then there are all those supplied by overhead power: dodgems, trolley buses, trams, even trains. The category may be useful - a little more thought needs to be applied first. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • "Battery electric vehicles" is the established usage, so we shouldn't break that without good reason. Vegaswikian wants to reclassify everything (I suppose we could use that opportunity to make the category names more specific), but that would require breaking conventional usage. Dethroned Buoy ( talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (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:English libertarians

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:English libertarians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge with the British libertarians category. The English libertarians category is underpopulated and unnecessary. Sir Richardson ( talk) 12:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Of the 9 entries: one was an individualist anarchist (Bool), one C18 (Hollis) and one C19 (Spencer) philosopher; Branson's supposed libertarian leanings are marked as uncited, Jones and Singleton not mentioned at all, and two (Lemmy and Stoppard) unclear in context. AllyD ( talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (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:Dandies

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Dandies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Isn't this a bit, er ... subjective? Defined in dandy as "a man who places particular importance upon physical appearance, refined language, and leisurely hobbies, pursued with the appearance of nonchalance in a cult of Self". Happy to be proven wrong, but that seems to me to be an inherently subjective standard: especially the "particular importance" part. That could be interpreted pretty widely, couldn't it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep There are a number of figures from the 19th and early 20th century who are particularly noted for belonging to this archtype. The coverage would not be too wide if kept only to people who have been notably referred to as such. Oscar Wilde and Beau Brummell, for example. Zazaban ( talk) 09:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Generally used as an epithet, it's an opinion often provided by people who dislike the subject. Unless someone self-identified by the term, I don't see the point in trying to categorize them this way. (see also Category:Dandy, which should also fall under this CfD). — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 14:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom as subjective, and also as irredeemably POV. As a form of categorisation-by-derogatory-epithet, it is a WP:BLP nightmare in the making. Suppose that politician X is described by hostile commentator Y or satirist Z as "a dandy"; is this sufficient to include them in the category? Is wikipedia going to start categorising people by every derogatory label applied to them? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I've never heard it called derogatory, I'd take it as a compliment. Zazaban ( talk) 04:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Have you heard of the song " Yankee Doodle"? The chorus part, that says "Yankee Doodle dandy" was originally meant derogatorily. (Americans subsequently co-opted the song, of course.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2010 (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:Great Lakes Bowl

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Great Lakes Bowl ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Great Lakes Bowl champion seasons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added later by BrownHairedGir)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This bowl game was played once in history. Just once. Why do we need a category to hold it? Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 07:34, 3 January 2010 (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:Presidents of the Gabonese Senate

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 per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the Gabonese Senate to Category:Presidents of the Senate of Gabon
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per articles Senate of Gabon and List of Presidents of the Senate of Gabon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2010 (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:Australasia

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. postdlf ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Australasia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This particular category could well become dumping ground of articles that do not relate to the exact context of this particular category - the main article has been extensively debated - it is potentially a contentious and misusable category like 'Asia; and should be deleted, with possible of other categories to carry the article of the same name Satu Suro 06:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC) [ [3]] being a good example where the category is not needed by any stretch of the imagination - and the See also the related Category:Australasia (ecozone). is a dead give away - articles for that cat have been put in this one Satu Suro 06:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a parent cat, tag with difuse and patrol it from time to time to re-cat articles into better sub-cats. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question/Comment - but what happens when some parent cats seem more trouble than they are worth? It would be very useful to know at what point they may be perceived as losing their effectiveness or functionality as a point of reference within the greater scheme of things? Satu Suro
Just because something requires effort doesn't mean it should be deleted. On that arguement, why keep any of these articles? Lugnuts ( talk) 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - good point - current contents of the pages that attempt to clarify what they actually mean is insufficient - but the possibility of gaining a broad consensus on what the 2 categories might function as remains an open question as well Satu Suro 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Australasia does mean something specific in biogeography ( Australasia ecozone), notwithstanding the debate about what Australasia might mean in other contexts. All the articles in the category relate to the biogeographic Australasia. Speculation that it "could well become a dumping ground of articles that do not relate to the exact context of this particular category" isn't sufficient reason to delete the category. Rather, let's delete the kludgy Category: Australasia (ecozone), and move the few articles in that category into this one. (unsigned)
  • Comment: That seems like a good argument for the reverse: ie, use Category: Australasia (ecozone) for those biogeographic articles, rather than simply “Category:Australasia”. For example, using “Australasia” for the Indonesian island of Buru is not useful if it’s not actually in Australasia and the intent is not clear. Much better would be to use the more specific Category: Australasia (ecozone) if it is indeed considered part of the ecozone. -- Merbabu ( talk) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (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.

postdlf ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Slam Dunk 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Slam Dunk images to Category:Slam Dunk (manga) images
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the head article Slam Dunk (manga). The term has several other uses (list at Slam dunk (disambiguation)), most notably Slam dunk, a basketball shooting technique. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (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:Dragons on the Argonath series

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Dragons on the Argonath series to Category:Novels by Christopher Rowley
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are interlinked through the template {{ Dragons of the Argonath novels}}. However there was no general category for the works of Christopher Rowley, so I created ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Novels by Christopher Rowley and added it as a parent to this previously unparented category.
It might appear superfluous to upmerge when there are apparently no articles on Rowley's other novels, but this solution fits better into the wider category structure of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Works by author. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_3&oldid=1088120614"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE