Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28[edit]

Christian Universalists[edit]

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: Category:Christian groups with universalist beliefs closed as keep, the rest relisted on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_4. Kbdank71 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christian universalists to Category:Christian Universalists
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article (Christian Universalism) and the main category (Category:Universalists, see also other subcategories.) Also the following subcategories:

In all cases, change the lower-case "universalist(s)" to the upper case "Universalist(s.)" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure about "Christian universalists" and "X Christian universalists", but I strongly object to capitalizing the u in "Christian groups with universalist beliefs". This is a common usage of the word universalist, not a proper usage referring to a specific group. Aleta Sing 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Christian groups with universalist beliefs; (very weak) rename the others. I'm unsure about all of these; I have an opinion, but it wouldn't be difficult to persuade me one way or the other. I think on balance, it's probably relatively safe to capitalize "Christian Universalists"; all forms of "Christian Universalism" are not the same, but neither are all types of Protestantism or Catholicism or Methodism, and we always capitalize those. I agree with Aleta that Category:Christian groups with universalist beliefs should be an probably be an exception to this, since it seems to be using "universalism" in a more generic sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Capitalizing the phrase to Christian Universalists makes it seem like a denomination with that as its proper name. Also, if we change this, we'd also, for consistency's sake, need to capitalize Christian anarchism and Category:Christian ecumenism and their related categories. If we say a person is just a universalist I think it definitely doesn't get capitalized. Just because we make it a bit more specific--a Christian universalist--I don't think it needs to be capitalized; it's not a proper name, it doesn't seem to me. Jacob1207 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you in favor of renaming Category:American Universalists to Category:American universalists as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:50, 2 August 2008 (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:Look and Read episodes[edit]

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; nominator performed the merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ObsoleteCategory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It is redundant to Category:Look and Read. I just emptied the category, as what was in it was not episodes, but names of the stories. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surport per nom. It seems a bit pointless to have two categories where there's only real need for one. --DWRtalk 05:11, 29 July 2008 (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.

Created in Error[edit]

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: speedy delete. Next time, you can just use {{db-author}}. BencherliteTalk 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sports clubs established in 1923 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created in Error Saga City (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (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:Fortis Turkey Cup[edit]

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:Türkiye Kupası. Kbdank71 12:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fortis Turkey Cup to either Category:Turkey Cup (to match the existing articles in the cat) or Category:Türkiye Kupası (to match the parent article)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Other related categories do not include the sponsor's name, eg it is Category:Football League Cup not Category:Carling Cup. Also, as Fortis did not sponsor the cup until 2005, it is inaccurate to classify some of the entries as relating to the "Fortis Turkey Cup" specifically. Also, renaming the category now would prevent it having to be renamed in the future every time the sponsor changes, as it is bound to do over time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I suggested Category:Turkish football league level 1 which is all in English. I'm not particularly happy about the proliferation of accents either. And then we had Oblasts and Vovoideships elsewhere. I will go back and protest, so as to be consistent. Occuli (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (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:Rеd dwarfs[edit]

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 all. Kbdank71 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rеd dwarfs to Category:Red dwarf stars
Category:Rеd giants to Category:Red giant stars
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Was proposed as a speedy rename to Category:Red dwarfs to fix a non ascii character. There is an article titled Red Dwarf. So this proposal should fix the character issue and the ambiguous nature of the current name. The main article lead uses red dwarf star so this proposal is not unreasonable. The parent category for both of these is Category:Stars. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Red Dwarf" is a TV show, and thus would not have a pluralized category for itself, while the star is at "red dwarf", so I don't think "red dwarfs" would engender confusion. As "red giant" does not have a dab page, it also appears to be confusion free. 70.51.8.129 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Adding "stars" to the name adds to the clarity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom, otherwise "Red giants" will find itself housing Clifford and Gossamer. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid confusion.--Lenticel (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to avoid confusion between the sitcom (which, by the way, is very funny). Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (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:Planned airlines of Netherlands Antilles[edit]

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. Kbdank71 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Planned airlines of Netherlands Antilles to Category:Planned airlines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. If the single airline listed begins service, then this category will be empty. Not like the Netherlands Antilles is a hotbed for airline formation. If kept, rename to Category:Planned airlines of the Netherlands Antilles. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2008 (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:Healthcare[edit]

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. Kbdank71 12:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Healthcare to Category:Health care
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article and the corresponding commons category. Both forms are used as children so if this rename is approved additional renames would be needed to get all categories using the same form. I suppose a question at some point will be at the country level where there could be a difference in the spelling based on local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – it seems to be Healthcare in the UK (economising on spaces). I'm not sure that I care, or should it be Icare? Occuli (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was why I said at the country level we may need to bow to local usage. However in the main category structure we should use a common form and not mix and match which can appear confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm a bit puzzled by this nomination. Category:Health care already exists as a redirect, and all 78 of the country sub-cats use "Healthcare". Aside from wanting to match the commons category, is there any other reason to rename this category? Wouldn't it make more sense to rename the commons cat? Cgingold (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so... I concede that the general practice is to name the category to match the main article. But that's not mandatory -- the article could be renamed, instead. Both terms are widely accepted (which is reflected in roughly equal G-hits). However, it would save an awful lot of work to rename the article and a few sub-cats, rather than going to the trouble of renaming all 78 of those country sub-cats (plus some number of other categories). Other than that, it's all the same to me -- I have no particular preference for either term. Cgingold (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Category:Health care is a category redirect. I have just removed the one category that was in it (Socialized medicine). If anything, the article should be moved to match the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One interesting issue is that 'Healthcare' is a spelling error in many spell checkers and 'Health care' is not a misspelling in spell checkers. So go with something that has spelling issues when there is something that can be used and not show up as a spelling error? Sounds rather odd. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What language is your spell checker set to? Mine is set to UK English and "healthcare" doesn't come up as a spelling error. Maybe it's considered an error in US English? However, "health care" is in the OED but "healthcare" is not, so it's difficult to say its universally-accepted UK English ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (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:Western Michigan University students[edit]

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. Kbdank71 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Western Michigan University students to Category:Western Michigan University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate categories. The category scheme does not differentiate between past and present students: once someone has attended the school they are included in the alumni. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2008 (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:Soutern Virginia University students[edit]

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. Kbdank71 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Soutern Virginia University students to Category:Southern Virginia University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories for past and present students use "alumni". There's also a spelling error in the name of the university. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2008 (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:Authors with mental illness[edit]

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: listify. Kbdank71 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Authors with mental illness to Category:Writers who have had mental illness
Nominator's rationale: use of 'writer' is standard on wikip. 'who have had' is better than 'with' as it more clearly expresses that their writing may not have occurred when they suffered from their mental illness. It is clearly stated on the category page that writers whose mental illness has been surmised from analysis of their writing have also been included, so changing 'with' or 'had' to 'been diagnosed' would not be right. Mayumashu (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should we intersect occupation with medical condition? This category appears to be one of a kind. Postdlf (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. And I am for one generally in favour of having cat pages fit schema. Perhaps the move should be to listify Mayumashu (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that then. Postdlf (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2008 (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:Sports planes[edit]

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 all, using "sport aircraft" variation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports planes and subcats to Category:Sports aircraft Category:Sport aircraft and subcats
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Sports planes and its many children should be renamed to the pattern Category:Sports aircraft Category:Sport aircraft, both for consistency with our other aircraft categories, and since these categories also include aircraft types other than aeroplanes - we have some sports helicopters and even at least one sports airship covered. I brought this up with WikiProject Aircraft some months ago with no opposition, and I'll invite any further comment now. The category tree is as follows:

Rlandmann (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question isn't "sports aircraft by country by decade" overkill in terms of categorization? Why not sports aircraft by decade, and sports aircraft by country? BencherliteTalk 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In and of itself, yes. However,these feed into a detailed network of categories that allow navigation between sports aircraft of a particular nation and decade into other aircraft of that nation and decade, into sports aircraft of that nation in other decades, and into sports aircraft of other nations in the same decade. We have nearly 5,000 articles on aircraft types that have been categorised under this system now, and it's meticulously well-maintained. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, rename all per nom for consistency. BencherliteTalk 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware that Aircraft ≠ airplane but am assuming Plane = airplane, and that these 'sports planes' categories (the few that I have looked at contain only planes, usually exactly one) could be subcatted under 'Airplanes' and the non-airplanes could be subcatted elsewhere, much as for the images. Why doesn't Category:Airplanes have a single airplane in it? Occuli (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the other 5,000 aircraft articles are categorised primarily as aircraft, with airplanes, helicopters, autogyros and airships sharing the main categories. Secondly, the sports "planes" categories do indeed contain sporting helicopters and even an airship. As to why Category:Airplanes is currently empty - presumably there's at least a few articles in the general Category:Aircraft that would better be categorised there - I'll take a look. But it's not really a useful way to classify individual aircraft types, since there are several thousand distinct airplane designs, but only a few hundred (for example) helicopters. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sport aircraft which seems to be the more common terminology, as well as because sport is the simple adjectival form of the word. Compare sports plane (~15,000 Ghits) to sport plane (~45,000 Ghits). As an aside, I'm deeply impressed with the level of categorization in Category:Aircraft. The taxonomy is useful, particularly for browsing among articles on similar aircraft. The members of WikiProject Aviation (and other editors) have done the project a service. --SSBohio 13:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though "Sports aircraft" sounds more natural to my British-English-tuned ears, I don't think that this is truly an ENGVAR issue. A bit of Googling has found ample examples of "sport aircraft" and "sport plane" on sites hosted in the UK and the British Commonwealth, and confirms Ssbohio's findings that the "sport" is the more common adjectival form for flying things. I therefore amend the nom. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2008 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_28&oldid=1146682115"