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.
Nominator's rationale: This category is intended for members of the
Omaha nation of
Native Americans, but despite the usage note it still has a tendency to get misused for non-Native people from the city of
Omaha, Nebraska. Usage notes, in truth, are very rarely effective at controlling ambiguity problems, as people often just apply the categories they think an article belongs in and then walk away without actually checking to see if they're doing it wrong. Of course, if somebody's got a better alternative name to propose, that would also be acceptable -- but the category still needs some alternate name that more effectively disambiguates it from the city of Omaha.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support- Although the suggested change would make this category's name inconsistent with other similar categories, avoiding confusion with the city makes the change worthwhile.
ReykYO!14:09, 22 November 2018 (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:Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests
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.
Nominator's rationale: In wp we generally categorize species by regions (usually defined by countries) rather than by the habitats they live in (which would be much messier). Many/most of the articles in this category (e.g.
Cape wagtail) make no mention of the
Albertine Rift or
montane forest. This category doesn't fit into a larger Fauna-of-Albertine... category scheme.
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:Technological comparison
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.
Rename to plural some way. I have a slight preference for Comparisons of technologies because Technological comparisons sounds like the comparisons themselves are technological, rather than the subjects of the comparisons.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:23, 25 November 2018 (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.
Bookstores by U.S. state/city
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.
Nominator's rationale. Five state categories, using three different naming formats. The sub-state categories, using two different naming formats. We need a convention here.
Support a consistent standard. My personal preference would be "in state or city" — because a bookstore is a discrete tangible thing that has a specifically pinpointable location, rather than an abstract or collective concept, English usage leans much more toward "in". That said, I don't really care strongly enough to challenge it if consensus mounts toward a different wording — my personal vote is "Bookstores in X", but I'm fine any other way as long as these end up being standardized on something consistent.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments -
Crown Books is a chain of bookstores based in Maryland. Perhaps there is a case for splitting the category into 'bookstores in' for tangible entities and 'bookstore chains based in' for chains.
Oculi (
talk)
13:58, 20 November 2018 (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:Months in the 2000s
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.
Nominator's rationale: I don't really get the purpose of this category but I would like to have more experienced editors take a look L293D (
☎ •
✎)02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Reorganize We should just follow what
Marcocapelle has suggested, of which is to standardize this section to fit with those used for the 1990s and 2010s. It is of the utmost importance that Wikipedia uses a unified standard for how articles are organized, and this reorganization would exceedingly beneficial in that regard.
SuperChris (
talk)
18:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't really get the nominator's rationale... I consult these categories regularly. They are not archives and the individual articles should be renamed.
Deb (
talk) 13:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Deb (
talk)
13:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I think that the "Current events archives" categories are low-value and should be deleted; the "real", potentially useful, reader-focussed categories of Months in the 2000s (which can be expanded in future) should be kept.
James F.(talk)22:24, 23 November 2018 (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:Current events 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.
Nominator's rationale: This category does not make sense. Currently, it contains only the subcategory [:Category:Years of the 21st century by country] and it is unclear what else it could contain.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
08:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Possible KEEP. Okay, well obviously the 21st century will remain current for decades to come, and when it ends, there will be a new century, of course. ok, so that is one point on this item. as far as your other point, i am trying to determine whethere there are other cats in existence that serve to enote current events by country that might be of interest here.
As you noted, currently there is only one cat in that catergory, so obviously this is not of urgent important to our common encylopedic project. are you saying there are no other cats that might be useful to place here? open to input. thanks! --
Sm8900 (
talk)
15:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, the current events tree serves as a repository of Wikipedia archives regarding current events. For current events in general, the 21st century category suffices.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:34, 19 November 2018 (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:2018-related timelines for current events
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.
Nominator's rationale: This seems to violate
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no need to gather "current events" or "general news" into timelines; this is not what an encyclopedia is for. Further, the title "current events" is problematic because in the future 2018 events will no longer be current.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
08:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Possible KEEP. keep.hmm, well we do have a cat here named "
Category:Current events don't we? so therefore, that label itself does not seem invalid. we don't change the name of that cat over time, obviously. ok, as far as your other points, I hear you. it was meant to denote topics and events of a general current nature, i.e. items of general news. so what's better? perhaps "2018-related timelines for general history"? in other words, what works as a descriptor for items, topics, events of a general nature as referenced here? --
Sm8900 (
talk)
15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment well, that's precisely the point. lists are NOT timelines. timelines are sorted chronoligcally. not all list articles fit that description. however to answer your larger question, ie how timelines for general history deserve their own distict cat, to differentiate them within timelines as a whole, there are NUMEROUS timelines that do NOT fit that description. we have timelines for JApanese anime, video games, sports, rock music, and numerous other fields having nothing to do with general history, eg pop culture, sports, recreation, etc. so that is the essential idea of this cat. --
Sm8900 (
talk)
16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:2018-related timelines, or just delete. All timelines are "of current events". Based on the contents, I think Sm8900 wanted to create a category for geo-political events, but regardless of what he wants, Category:2018-related timelines is the correct location.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
21:25, 19 November 2018 (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:2018 timelines 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.
We never create two categories for the same topic where one does and the other does not allow subcategories. This is a very simple case of
WP:OVERLAPCAT. What we can do instad, however, is keeping this category, adding it as a subcategory to
Category:2018 by country and removing the individual articles there.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
thanks for your comment above. as indicated above, I have withdrawn my prior comments on this topic. i have decided to remain neutral on this. however, i am open to any suggestions, feedback, etc, that anyone may have. thanks. --
Sm8900 (
talk)
21:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
It is not a duplicate. One category has timelines only, the other has all events in that country in that year. The category was created for
Category:2018-related timelines. The creator of Category:2018 timelines by country put the "x by country" categories in Category:2018-related timelines, I objected because these categories have things other than timelines. Personally I don't think we need either, but if we keep
Category:2018-related timelines then we should also keep this one as it is a clear substructure. --
mfb (
talk)
21:16, 19 November 2018 (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:Conservative Jewish synagogues
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 word "Jewish" may seem superfluous, but without it the adjective "Conservative" becomes ambiguous. This category is for synagogues which are part of the
Conservative Judaism movement, but the unqualified title "Conservative synagogues" could be applied to applied as an assessment of the political or social small-c conservatism of the congregation. Ambiguity causes miscategorisation, which wastes the time and effort of both editors and readers. Please avoid it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support reverse merge per BrownHairedGirl (or support merge as a second best option, because the two categories obviously serve the same purpose).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
A reverse merge would make this category's name inconsistent with many other categories (e.g.
Category:Conservative synagogues in Ohio). Can I suggest that someone in favour of a reverse merge of this category create a CFD to insert "Jewish" in the names of the other categories; if that looks like being successful then I'll withdraw (my support for) this CFD. DexDor(talk)06:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks, either direction is ok with me although I think inserting "Jewish" is probably unnecessary (and would be a bit like "Protestant Christian churches"). DexDor(talk)20:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
DexDor: I think it's nothing at all like "Protestant Christian churches".
Support merging and renaming categories to include the word "Jewish". It seems redundant to me, but I can see how it might be ambiguous in some contexts without the word. —
MShabazzTalk/Stalk19:41, 21 November 2018 (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.