- 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 category to Category:Sportspeople stubs, as it still only contains 30 pages; and rename Template:Referee-stub to Template:Sports-official-bio-stub (over new redirect created by Pegship). – Fayenatic L ondon 14:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not needed, created out of process, and the name doesn't conform to stub category norms. Her Pegship ( talk) 00:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: malformed category, not useful. Pam D 07:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I doubt that many referees are known primarily through that job. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - per PamD. Note that I clearly disagree with עוד מישהו Od Mishehu, I am not the most hardcore football (soccer) fan out there, yet I certainly am able to recognise the name of several referees, Portuguese or worldwide due to following international competitions, yet I do not know whatever else job they have (nor I care about it). Also, aren't many top level referees professionals, in exclusivity? In short, IMO, there may be a similar stub classification but this is not it - Nabla ( talk) 19:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Update: I have proposed a sports official stub type over at WPSS which should cover a broader area and conform to the category and template standards. Her Pegship ( talk) 18:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hold for now pending the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2016/November. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{ Sports-official-bio-stub}} has been created and I'll transfer the referee articles to that stub type, after which it will be clear for the deletion of {{ Referee-stub}}. Her Pegship ( talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Update: GiantSnowman has reverted my edits on all {{ Referee-stub}} articles, noting that "referee" was a more specific term and thus more appropriate. Correct, but not the point. I've left a note on his/her talk page about the discussion here and the one over at WPSS and will wait until later in the day to revert GiantSnowman's reversions. I'm sure s/he means well. Her Pegship ( talk) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: this category and Referee stub template is need and there were 60 or more articles which required such a template and category
Derakhshan (
talk)
06:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- There may be sufficient articles for this template eventually (as of Wednesday it was only used on 25 articles), but the point here is that it's mis-formed and created out of process. Her Pegship ( talk) 20:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - the term 'referee' is used as the standard term for match officials in association football, and also ice hockey (I believe). Why can't this remain and be a more specific sub-stub of the new/proposed 'sports-officials' stub? Giant Snowman 07:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I responded to
GiantSnowman on their talk page; the short version is that creating the sports official biography stub type is the first step toward sorting out various types of officials and seeing which sub-types will need their own templates. Also, as mentioned above, the referee template is incorrectly formed and created out of process.
Her Pegship (
talk)
20:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "created out of process" - that's the opposite of
WP:BOLD.
Giant
Snowman
12:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I totally respect WP:BOLD; however, WP has some rules in place to keep editors both involved and accountable, and sometimes WP:BOLD should be implemented in tandem with those rules. The process of proposing, creating, and deploying stub templates and categories is guided by the Stub sorting WikiProject, and the referee stub was created and deployed without benefit of discussion with the project folks. Compromise: we could create the category for {{ sports-official-bio-stub}} and then upmerge a referee template to that category. (The template would still have to be revised per naming conventions, i.e. {{ referee-bio-stub}} or {{ sports-referee-bio-stub}}. Her Pegship ( talk) 00:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "created out of process" - that's the opposite of
WP:BOLD.
Giant
Snowman
12:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I responded to
GiantSnowman on their talk page; the short version is that creating the sports official biography stub type is the first step toward sorting out various types of officials and seeing which sub-types will need their own templates. Also, as mentioned above, the referee template is incorrectly formed and created out of process.
Her Pegship (
talk)
20:51, 2 December 2016 (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.
- 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:Alumni of the Theological Department of King's College London. The merge votes at the end were mostly added before additional facts were clarified, namely that the Theological Department of King's College London is confusingly named and no longer part of King's College London. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think it makes much sense to sub-categorise in this way. In that case you could end up with no end of sub-cats based on profession. This List of King's College London alumni already does a pretty good job of listing alumni by profession, and I think the newly created category is superfluous. Uhooep ( talk) 00:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - didn't the theological dept of King's College / KCL have a function as a theological college, with its own qualification (the AKC)? That seems to me enough to justify keeping the clergy who trained there separate. Eustachiusz ( talk) 11:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Support, we don't categorize alumni by later occupation or by former university department. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support stricken, see discussion below. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- WE should not categorise alumni by qualification earned. I have not looked to see if we may need also to merge to another target, e.g. Anglican clergy. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged for discussion. Now that it has been, it should remain open for a fresh seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged for discussion. Now that it has been, it should remain open for a fresh seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as originator: when editing a lot of priests' (and bishops') articles, I notice their university education and their ministerial training aren't always distinguished, so I've been trying to clarify that information where possible. Creating this category was to help with the distinction in KCL's case: because while some of these individuals took their first undergraduate degrees at KCL (and were trained for ministry elsewhere), there will be a number who were there training for ministry with the separate-ish KCL Theological Dept. Some will have done both. DBD 21:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @ DBD: Do you mean to say that the priests in this category weren't alumni of King's College London at all because they were just undergraduates? I'm not getting this confirmed when reading the articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. Rather, the department which trained priests was technically a separate educational institution. (See Associateship of King's College#Theological AKC) DBD 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- So if I understand correctly the Theological Department of King's College is an entirely independent institute since 1910, not part of the University of London. This is quite confusing, it would help to create a separate article about it. With respect to the category nomination, we might then rename the category to Category:Alumni of the Theological Department of King's College London. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll agree to this compromise. DBD 22:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- View unchanged -- A person my get a BA from one university, a masters from another and a doctorate from a third. He then is an alumnus of all three. We do not need to split out one particular qualification, such as ordination training. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge One problem ignored is that this is not a by training institution but by profesion category. We do not seperate by profession and we do not in general categorize differently based on the level of degree the person received at the institution involved. Categories are not meant to convey all the information available in an article. This is too fine a distinction. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, the alternative proposal Category:Alumni of the Theological Department of King's College London doesn't have that problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge The overlap of profession and school isn't defining here. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:20, 27 November 2016 (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.
- 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 contents are such that this is the best way forward. Timrollpickering 13:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SHAREDNAME. In article space
Administration is a disambiguation page. Possibly turn the category page into a category disambiguation page.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Useless. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Some articles could usefully be moved down into e.g. Public administration, but others span the general topic across government, business and non-profit sectors. Mind you, it might be possible to move each article currently in this category into either one or multiple sub-categories, in which case I would have no objection to making it a category disambiguation page listing most of the current sub-cats (excluding Dioceses). – Fayenatic L ondon 16:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not possible to move every article into child categories, exactly because of the ambiguity problem. While most articles are (roughly) about management, some other articles refer to administrative processes ("paperwork"), one article is a completely different topic on its own ( Administration (probate law)) etc. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. This grouping doesn't make sense when you look at the current contents. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:22, 27 November 2016 (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.
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Directors in Tulu cinema to Category:Indian film directors
- Nominator's rationale: Very small category Rathfelder ( talk) 19:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per nom The category only includes a single article. Dimadick ( talk) 15:19, 26 October 2016 (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.
- 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. (Some articles can be double upmerged if needed. But from my quick check, most will not need to be.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Chinese descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Filipino descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Hong Kong descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Indian descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Iranian descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Iraqi descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Japanese descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Laotian descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Pakistani descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Singaporean descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of South Korean descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Sri Lankan descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Turkish descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Propose merging Category:Canadian writers of Vietnamese descent to Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent
- Nominator's rationale: More of Mannrheimo's excessive overcategorization on unnecessary ethnic overspecificity. While the general state of being of broadly Asian descent is relevant in conjunction with being a Canadian writer, it is not WP:DEFINING to intersect that with individual national backgrounds like Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese — Canadian literature does not treat Kim Thúy differently from Madeleine Thien or Kerri Sakamoto or Shyam Selvadurai on the basis of ethnic differences, but treats them all as "Asian Canadian writers", the end. As well, many of the resulting categories violate WP:SMALLCAT with just one or two or four entries. Merges should also watch out for whether the person is appropriately filed in "Canadian people of X descent" or not, but there's no need for subcategories which cross that tree with the writers tree. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Double upmerge eac into
Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent and Canadian people of Fooian descent (i.e upmerge
Category:Canadian writers of Vietnamese descent into
Category:Canadian people of Vietnamese descent) - as long as these categories exist, I see no reason not to upmerge the nominated categories into those, as well.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
12:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, there are some cases where the "writers of X descent" category was added alongside "people of X descent" rather than replacing it, making it unnecessary to add "people" back, and there are other cases where the writer is already in an appropriate subcategory — for example, Shyam Selvadurai is already in Category:Sri Lankan emigrants to Canada and Category:Canadian people of Sri Lankan Tamil descent, so readding him to Category:Canadian people of Sri Lankan descent would still be undesirable duplicate categorization. That's why I specified in my nomination statement that upmerging to "people" was conditional on the articles' other categories, rather than a blanket thing that had to automatically happen to every single article involved here. Bearcat ( talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Double upmerge per עוד מישהו as we normally do for triple intersections. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Why is this discussion not mentioned on the various Asian country wikiprojects? Is a wider discussion not a good thing? Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
- On what grounds would it need to be? These are Canadian topics. Bearcat ( talk) 17:48, 14 November 2016 (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.
- 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)
01:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Big data glossary (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Machine learning for big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:MapReduce for big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:NLP for big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:NoSQL databases for big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Processing for big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Serialization of big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Servers for big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Storage for big date (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Terms of big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Visualization of big data (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Big data glossary (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a typical case of WP:Overcategorization. It adds no value to the existing categories related to Category:Big data, and is not a glossary, either. This might be more suitable for a Wikipedia Book instead, with these categories being chapters of the book.
- Some of the created sub-categories "Something for big data" even have typos: Category:Storage for big date and the redlink "scikits.learn" in Category:Machine learning for big data.
- Some of these are pages rather than categories: Category:Visualization of big data, Category:Machine learning for big data, Category:NLP for big data, Category:Processing for big data.
- -- Chire ( talk) 13:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Big data glossary and children. This is not a defining aspect of the items categorised. Most of these are cloud-related, not application specific to Big Data purposes. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons given above. This set of new categories is the work of five new accounts which I have listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Narniawang. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:03, 30 October 2016 (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.
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: It is empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 13:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- not needed -- Even if not empty, this would have been far too specific to be worth having. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:09, 30 October 2016 (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.
- 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 and move articles to Category:History of Riverside County, California or Category:Riverside County, California when appropriate ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Apparently a one-off category. If these things are history, they belong in that category, but they also include biographies of people who were in the news in Riverside County, California, at some unspecified time or another. Imagine 2000 other county categories with every person or event that was "newsy" in the county. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. "News stories in individual location" isn't a useful way to organize this type of content, especially if the article is a WP:BLP of an individual who was at some point involved in a news story rather than an event article about a news story. Bearcat ( talk) 22:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Purge of people (who are not stories) then merge to Category:History of Riverside County, California OR Category:Riverside County, California. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 30 October 2016 (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.