- 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: dual upmerge.
(non-admin closure)
DannyS712 (
talk)
09:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Indian religions portals to Category:India portals and Category:Religion portals
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. After several deletions of related portals, this category now contains only one item: Category:Hinduism portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Merge, delete, whatever; ports are useless! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Note that it is irrelevant for this discussion whether portals are useful or not. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I tried to think what else might populate this - possibly Jainism or the Parsees' religion, but they would be much better simply under religion, quite apart from the question of whether these would need a portal. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#Category:Horror rock
- 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)
DannyS712 (
talk)
09:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Digital newspapers to Category:News websites
- Nominator's rationale: No meaningful distinction between the two. The definition offered is: "Newspapers which are available digitally (either downloadable or browsable online), format similar to the print version." Quite a lot dont have a print version, if they ever had one, and even if they do there is nothing in the articles I've seen to suggest that the format is similar to the print version. If this is agreed then there are subcategories to follow. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support, I checked a number of articles in the subcategories and they were news websites indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support, per nom. Plus the subcats, as mentioned, and also one of its containers: Category:Newspapers by medium. Which currently contains only four pages that (as a container) it's not supposed to contain, this cat, and the admittedly-fascinating Category:Telephone newspapers. Which is something I was totally unaware was ever a thing (around 120 years ago).
- Comment: Tangentially, Category:Newspapers by medium has led me to the discovery that we have entirely separate articles on: Digital newspaper, Digital newspaper technology, and Online newspaper, so now I feel like I have some merges to propose. -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 10:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. I don't see how Online newspapers are different from News websites. And what about online magasines and periodicals? Rathfelder ( talk) 17:43, 5 November 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 09:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Computer programmers. This was an opposed speedy (see Category talk:Programmers who committed suicide#Suggested rename) because the main article is Programmer; however, while that may be appropriate for mainspace, it is too ambiguous (see Programmer (disambiguation)) for the category namespace. In any case, unless/until the parent is renamed to Category:Programmers (currently a category-redirect), this title should not remain inconsistent. (Courtesy pinging User:Armbrust and User:Fgnievinski) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support; better explained than in my original proposition. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support to better explain contents. Dimadick ( talk) 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I felt like I supported this as a no-brainer, until I looked at that speedy objection. It's true that
Programmer is the article in question, and in fact there is no
Programmer (disambiguation) — that redirects to
Program (disambiguation), which in fact lists basically no real ambiguities for "Programmer". The only alternatives to
Programmer are
Synthesizer programmer which is just a redirect to
Synthesizer, and
Programmer (hardware) which is obviously not a person. So now I feel like maybe
Category:Computer programmers should be renamed to
Category:Programmers. --
FeRDNYC (
talk)
01:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- From the plain-language perspective that "programmer" means "one who programs" or "one who performs programming", there could be quite a few potential ambiguities based on the entries on the disambiguation page: e.g., programmer (music), radio programmer, broadcast programmer. I appreciate your perspective, and to be honest I, too, was initially torn between nominating this category versus the parent. I would not necessarily oppose a nomination to rename the parent, but unless/until that happens I would argue that we should not pre-judge the outcome of a future, hypothetical discussion and this category should be renamed to align with its current parent. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
06:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @
Black Falcon:
From the plain-language perspective that "programmer" means "one who programs" or "one who performs programming", there could be quite a few potential ambiguities based on the entries on the disambiguation page: e.g., programmer (music), radio programmer, broadcast programmer.
I don't dispute that, technically, but it just doesn't strike me as true practically. The fact is, if you were to meet someone on the street and they told you "I'm a programmer", you'd know they meant a computer programmer. Any of us would. A profession other than computer programmer, you'd expect them to specify what "alternate" type of programmer. But in our current society, "programmer" == "computer programmer". WP:COMMONNAME and all that.
That being said, I don't really dispute that, unless Category:Computer programmers is renamed/redirected, it makes sense to rename this one. -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 22:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)- That's fair. The fact is, I don't have any strong feelings about this either, except that this category should match whatever naming convention its parent uses. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- @
Black Falcon:
- From the plain-language perspective that "programmer" means "one who programs" or "one who performs programming", there could be quite a few potential ambiguities based on the entries on the disambiguation page: e.g., programmer (music), radio programmer, broadcast programmer. I appreciate your perspective, and to be honest I, too, was initially torn between nominating this category versus the parent. I would not necessarily oppose a nomination to rename the parent, but unless/until that happens I would argue that we should not pre-judge the outcome of a future, hypothetical discussion and this category should be renamed to align with its current parent. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
06:28, 6 November 2019 (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.
(non-admin closure)
DannyS712 (
talk)
09:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:SGI people to Category:Silicon Graphics people
- Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Silicon Graphics, and because SGI is ambiguous. I did not propose to speedy because all applicable subcategories of Category:Silicon Graphics use the acronym. I will defer to others who are more knowledgeable on this topic to nominate the other subcategories, if appropriate. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support More descriptive title. Dimadick ( talk) 20:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- We try to avoid abbreviations in category names. It may be that some of the sibling subcats also need renaming, but I woulkd defer to those more knowledgeable of the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:22, 9 November 2019 (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: Renamed following clear precedent, 2010-2015, 2015-2017. The only hesitations were in regard to the dissolution of parliament which has now happened.
Cabayi (
talk)
10:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:UK MPs 2017– to Category:UK MPs 2017–2019
- Nominator's rationale: The current UK Parliament, elected in 2017, is due to be dissolved on Wednesday 6 November 2019 [1], in preparation for the 2019 United Kingdom general election.
- This category will then need renaming to fit the YYYY–YYYY convention of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament
- Recent British politics hasn't been entirely predictable, and plans relating to dates have not always been implemented. So I think it's best to await confirmation in reliable sources that dissolution has actually taken place.
- Once that confirmation is available, then the category will be eligible for speedy renaming per WP:C2D(ii).
- Unless there are objections, that makes the category eligible for speedy renaming 48 hours after details are posted here of the reliable sources confirming that dissolution has happened. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support once dissolution is confirmed. I'd also like to nominate "Recent British politics hasn't been entirely predictable" for the title of Understatement of the Year.
Grutness...
wha?
02:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- @ Grutness, given the subject matter, I did try to adopt the English technique of understatement. <grin> More colourful terminology is available ... -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- @ Grutness: I suppose the only response that feels appropriate is, to quote the great, just-departed John Bercow: ORDAAAAAAH! -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 10:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- (P.S: For the record, Bercow is newly-retired, not dead. I realized when I read it back that my original comment sounded ominous.) -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 00:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Bondegezou ( talk) 06:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- I would normally say this was premature until this dissolution had happened, but it would require another Act of Parliament to prevent it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- @ Peterkingiron, in normal circumstances the chances of another Act are non-existent, but the current Westminster Parliament seems to have a taste for instant legislation. So I wouldn't entirely rule it out, which is why I recommend waiting until dissolution has actually happened. Of course, with a prorogation having been recently annulled by the courts, we can't entirely rule out a dissolution being voided by the courts ... but I think best cross that bridge if and when we come to it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. As I write this, the current parliament will be dissolved in less than 10 hours. -- Philip Stevens ( talk) 14:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support (of course). Straightforward housekeeping. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:21, 5 November 2019 (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.