Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

November 13

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Wikitravel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Single entry , and given the migration of Wikitravel content to Wikivoyage unlikely to see future use. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:58, 13 November 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:National Gay Newspaper Guild

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining characteristic of the member newspapers. The header text indicates the category was intended to serve the function of a list and the list in the main article serves that purpose. Buck Winston ( talk) 23:26, 13 November 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.
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 parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with virtually no chance for expansion. Almost no newspapers cater specifically to gay male and not lesbian or bisexual readers. Buck Winston ( talk) 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Well, one good reason not to is that so few media outlets in the United States cater specifically to gay men to the exclusion of lesbians and bisexual men that the category will never be useful and should probably be deleted. Buck Winston ( talk) 19:58, 18 November 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.

Linguists by nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming:

"Fooian linguists" to "Linguists from Foo"

Rationalle: In each of these cateogries, the adjectival forms of the country names are also the names of languages; in the case of linguists and grammarians, it sounds like these people study the languages, as opposed to being from these countries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply

The current contents overwhelmingly use nationality, so this would be a new creation not a split. The only exception I was able to find in a large random sampling was Sheldon Pollock, who had no mention of his own nationality in the article (and may in fact be Indian for all I know). I think a by-language tree would be useful, though, having just seen how many linguists study a language other than their own. There are currently a fair few mixed among Category:Linguists by field of research with rather inconsistent naming (eg Category:Austronesianists, Category:Linguists of Yiddish, Category:Southeast Asian language scholars and Category:Mesoamerican linguists). -- Qetuth ( talk) 23:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Actually, there's mantion of Sheldon Pollock having received the Padma Shri, which would seem to imply that he is, in fact, a citizen of India. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with the American Civil Liberties Union

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:American Civil Liberties Union people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Current name is kind of awkward. Any chance we could come up with something better? p b p 20:18, 13 November 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:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine

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: split as nominated. The "British Palestine" vs. "Mandatory Palestine" point is a good one, and may be taken up for all of the subcategories of Category:Mandatory Palestine. For now, it's OK if we create one with "British Palestine", and then we can consider it with the others that use this terminology. Similarly, the "of" vs. "in" issue can be dealt with separately, as needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 7 December 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:Norwegian toponyms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are not articles on Norwegian toponymy, most are either places in Norway or disambiguation pages having one or more places in Norway among the entries. We have entire schemes for categorizing places by where they are located; this adds little to nothing. Yes, there are a whole slew of these, but this is the trial balloon; if we decide it ought to go, then the rest will get nominated in short order.... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:11, 13 November 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.

Law in China

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many recent precedents for using the short name China for PRC. The RoC category name is still required as it contains categories for pre-1949 as well as Category:Taiwanese law. Although most of Category:Law by country would use the pattern "Chinese law", this would be ambiguous; in such cases, "Law in" is more common than "Law of", e.g. Category:Law in the Republic of Ireland. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:21, 13 November 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:List of honours of a royal family by country

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:Lists of honours of a royal family by country. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Originally requested as a speedy rename to correct List to Lists, but I wasn't particularly happy with the result. Mimich suggested this rename as not all members are royal families.. Tassedethe ( talk) 16:03, 13 November 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:Enver Hoxha

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) 05:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--all of it is interlinked and some of it has a more general tie to the individual. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:21, 13 November 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:Burials at Metsakalmistu

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category based on non-defining (trivial) criteria. Might be fine in Estonian Wiki, but here unneeded. Just clutters category sections if used on articles here. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 10:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What kind of value does categorization on such minor details give?! -- Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 21:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
We have had many cfds on burials categories, nearly all of which have ended in either keep or no consensus. Eg this one. Oculi ( talk) 00:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The offered example was way back in 2007. I see no reason why we should continue an unwise policy because 5 years ago people thought it was good. Anyway the given example did not debate the merits of having such categories, it debated how they should be named. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:02, 18 November 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:Guyanese cricketers

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: do not do a straight rename. As discussed, the nominated category can remain as a category for cricketers of Guyanese nationality. However, we can also have created a category for cricketers on the national team of Guyana, which can be called Category:Guyana cricketers. So, feel free to split the contents into the two categories in question. I have reformatted the nominated category into a "by nationality" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is misleadingly named if the category description is correct. According to the description this category is for cricketers who have played for a particular cricket team - British Guiana (1865-1966) or Guyana (1967-present). It is not for cricketers of Guyanese nationality - as this name assumes. Cricketers of Guyanese nationality may have played for some other team and non-Guyanese players can and have played for the Guyana cricket team. This confusion between nationality and cricket team also extends to Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Jamaica. Mattinbgn ( talk) 05:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename per nom. This rationale already applies to cricketer categories for first-class teams for other parts of the world. Johnlp ( talk) 09:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Split: One of these names refers to a nationality, and the other to a first class team, both of which are established and well-defined trees. Presumably there is some overlap, but with 88 members I have little doubt that both categories are justified. -- Qetuth ( talk) 12:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment Exactly correct and summarised much better than I did. The Guyana cricket team is not the national team of Guyana in the same sense of the Guyana national football team but rather a representative side of the Guyana Cricket Board. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    Qetuth does not just summarise better, but also proposes a different action. Per my Qetuth's comment and objection below, Mattinbgn's renaming proposal is wrong. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the present name -- The appropriate adjectgive is Guyanese. WP has an annoying habit of instisting on using a noun (as if an adjective), where an appropriate adjective exists. By all means split, if desired, to distinguish Guyanese cricketers (nationaliry) and Category:Guyana cricket team players. There is no objection to including those from the period when the polity was the colony of British Guiana. This is an application of the principle that we use for alumni categories, that alumni of a predecessor are deemed to be alumni of the successor, where an institution has merged or been renamed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    The present name is incorrect - and can't be kept. This category is for the players of a particular cricket team. If you want to establish a new category for cricketers of Guyanese nationality, that's fine - but it doesn't make this name any more correct. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is the right objective, but the wrong way of going about it.
    There are many cricketers who do not play for their country's international team, and the convention of Category:Sportspeople by nationality is that each category for sportspeople from that country is called Category:Fooian fooers, where "Fooian" is the nationality and "fooers" is cricketers/footballers/swimmers/etc.
    The same logic should be applied to cricketers, with a catch-all Category:Guyanese cricketers and a subcat for the international players. That should be achieved by creating and populating the sub-category rather than by renaming this one. Since this has been the only category for cricketers from Guyana, it will inevitably include many who never played for the international team, added there in good faith by editors suing HotCat who never see the category definition. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose this is part of the cricketers by nationality scheme and has the right name. It does have a possibly misleading description, which should be changed so it properly fits what this category should be. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment since further clarification/examples may be needed: As I understand it, because of the structure of West Indies cricket, the teams which play in the Category:West Indian domestic cricket competitions are not strictly representative side in the normal sense of international competition, but in effect a club side which just happens to be the local side for...an entire nation. A non-cricket equivalent may be the New Zealand Warriors. Barbados and Jamaica for example have separate categories for players from that country, which follow the naming convention for Fooian players, and then another for the team, following naming convention for team-name players (all four of these cats found in Category:West Indian cricketers. This was discussed previously at CfD here. Outside the West Indies, you can look at equivalent categories: Category:Cricketers from Western Australia vs Category:Western Australia cricketers as state is the first class team level in Australia. In England, the teams and hence the first class team categories are by county or university, but the players are either sorted by Era or not sorted at all.
The current category has a description for a team-members cat, but a name and 'fooian' template of a nationality cat, and contains both. It also has the parent categories of both structures. I have not examined the contents fully, but a minute of quick checking of random members found me an example of a player who (I think from reading article) is not Guyanese but played for Guyana Snuffy Browne, one who was Guyanese but who never played for Guyana was Rupert Roopnaraine and one who was both is Mark Harper. This my argument for split. Mattinbgn's comments above seem to say he considers the current cat the team one but would be happy for a nationality one to be created, so as far as I can tell we are arguing the exact same thing, just using a different word for it. -- Qetuth ( talk) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
There seems to be general agreement that a split is needed. However, my concern is that a rename is not the way to go about it, and not even a good first step. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Moondyne's rationale is perfectly sound, and probably made clearer by Qetuth. Two separate categories are needed: Guyanese cricketers (as part of the *cricketers by nationality*, *Guyanese sportspeople*, and *West Indian cricketers* categories) and Guyana cricketers (as part of the *Players in West Indian domestic cricket by team* category. I don't think renaming the current category is the best way to go about this (particularly with the amount of the opposition here)—although it may be the easiest. Probably some manual work is needed to tidy up the whole of Category:West Indian cricketers to match both team and nationality trees. IgnorantArmies – 13:48, Friday November 16, 2012 ( UTC)
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:Philosophical works

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, not least because it has been deleted before at CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This whole "works" category is unnecessary insofar as the philosophy category is concerned. The philosophical literature category already covered everything sufficiently a long time ago. This whole "works" thing is a little late to the party. The organization of the philosophy department and project are not helped by the "works" category, and I propose that people just accept that "philosophical literature" will suffice for these purposes. Greg Bard ( talk) 03:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Please stop. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - 3 of its subcategories (podcasts, radio programs, and television series) are not anywhere else in the philosophy tree and are not traditionally placed in literature categories anywhere else (eg, see Category:Religious works, or Category:Science fiction by medium. No suggestion has been made as to where these should instead go except for a mention of another deleted category and the idea that once a podcast has been transcribed it is no longer a podcast. As far as I can see, the previous CfD had zero supporting votes, and no editor besides nom offered any agreement or argument for deletion. And being a container category is not a reason for deletion. I'm willing to be convinced if an argument for deletion appears. -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply
They are not in the category tree otherwise because they were moved subsequent to this proposal. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
All Category:Works by discipline contain podcasts, documentary films, television series, ... We can't stick with the term "literature". As for "the big task", I could fix it in a few hours. Stefanomione ( talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Does that include all the Wikipedia namespace stuff too? There is a whole Philosophical literature task force which was designed to cover all of that stuff. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Now I see ... Indeed, the task force will need a few months ... But ... I'm not sure ... shouldn't we consider
Category:Primary works of philosophy and
Category:Secondary works of philosophy ? Stefanomione ( talk) 18:48, 6 December 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.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and subcategories

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. Sub-categories not explicitly listed here can be taken through speedy renaming. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename to lower case:

Per MOS:CAPS and WP:AT. This is English, not German; we do not capitalize random nouns and noun phrases. The [non-trademarked] names of sports and games are not proper names and are not capitalized. Cf. jujutsu, chess, snooker, basketball, etc., etc., etc. The real name is jujutsu, anyway, and we don't capitalize after the hyphen in English, so "Jiu-Jitsu" is wrong three times over. A case can probably be made for moving this all to "Brazilian jujutsu", but I won't raise that issue in this rename nomination (it would be a debate between proponents of "proper" usage of historical martial arts terminology vs. proponents of following populist but often historically ignorant current sources; it is an argument I WP:DGAF about in this case).

This is arguably a speedy case as a simple typo correction, but the WP:SSF essay exists largely because aficionados of any particular special interest are liable to argue pretty close to the point of death over capitalizing whatever it is they are especially interested in. PS: See also Talk:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu#Requested move. PPS: This nomination intentionally does not include Category:World Jiu-Jitsu Championship, which reflects the official name (capitalized and hyphenated) of the event series. PPPS: I do not have even 1/10 the necessary patience for robotic nonsense to add redundant CfR tags to all 40+ subcats of this thing. The probably <20 editors who care at all will notice the CfR tag on the main category and the related article talk page.
— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:03, 13 November 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.
I was wrong; this is not a speedy case. I've linked to the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu because the discussion is ongoing there, and this category has to match the article, either way. This CfD needs to remain open while the RM is open, and the speedy CfR needs to be reversed pending that outcome, procedurally speaking. Otherwise it borders on an unintentional WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I didn't expect any argument at all, but some actually did arise at the RM— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:People from Bijapur

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: convert to List of people from Bijapur, Karnataka, since Bijapur is ambiguous. At the time of the close, no articles were left in the category, so I assume a manual merge was done to Category:People from Bijapur, Karnataka. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Convert Category:People from Bijapur to article List of people from Bijapur
Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly used category – sumone10154( talk) 03:11, 13 November 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:Khuda Kay Liye

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed. The film and its soundtrack are this category's only contents, and the soundtrack is easily linkable from the main article and vice versa. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 00:20, 13 November 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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_13&oldid=1138397076"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE