Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Louis University[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 rename C2A/C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed to reflect the name of the school, which is "Saint Louis University" and not "St. Louis University". Tavix | Talk 20:59, 6 April 2011 (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:Not renamed. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To expand the category's scope, per the inclusion of Girl Scouts Korea. Also, there are ~20 categories in Category:Scouting and Guiding by country which take the format "Scouting in Foo"—is this deliberate (I noticed that most (all?) contain only Scouting-related articles) or should they, too, be renamed? (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk) 16:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — There are no Guiding organizations in South Korea. All of the categories were originally Scouting only— those with Guiding were renamed two years ago, but countries without Guiding were not renamed. -— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of Girl Scouts Korea identifies it as a Guiding organization. The principle makes sense for the other countries, though. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Gadget850. This was widely discussed two years ago and countries with Girl Scouts rather than Girl Guides were categorized as "Scouting in ..". --Bduke(Discussion) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not categorization by a shared name? I confess to having limited knowledge of Scouting and Guiding, so it may just be confusion or misunderstanding on my part, but is a Guiding organization titled "Girl Scouts of Foo" (e.g. Girl Scouts Korea) significantly different from one titled "Girl Guides of Foo" (e.g. Bangladesh Girl Guides Association)? Or, is the description of Girl Scouts Korea as "the national Guiding organization of South Korea" inaccurate? -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries use the term Girl Guide and some use the term Girl Scout. Both are considered part of the Scout Movement. Most of the organisations belong to the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. It seems inappropriate to use the term "Guide" when the organisation does not use it. The description of Girl Scouts Korea as "the national Guiding organization of South Korea" is not inaccurate but it is confusing. It would be better if it read "the national Scouting organization for girls of South Korea", although "Scouting" in this context should still link to Girl Guides, which starts "Girl Guides or Girl Scouts". --Bduke(Discussion) 02:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. It still seems a bit odd to me to categorize by an organization's title rather than its function or scope but, again, I admit to not knowing much about the Scout Movement (and I'm sure that there is some nuance I am missing), so I am happy to defer to the judgment of those who do. Please consider my nomination withdrawn. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:03, 7 April 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Millions and millions of famous people will enjoy sports, but there's no need for a category for them. Whatever next, 'Category:People who enjoy breathing oxygen'?! GiantSnowman 14:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm sure this is a reincarnation of something deleted previously. (A different name tho.) Occuli (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People notable for their fandom are listed in Category:Sports spectators. The one article in the nominated category can be merged into the more general category. - Eureka Lott 18:26, 6 April 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale: There isn't really a field called "Formal semantics of everything". There are formal semantic approaches in (formal) logic, programming languages, and linguistics. The main article was turned into a disambiguation. The category is too broad to be useful; WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I get the point but I feel there's still some link between the three topics on the disambiguation page. These topics have developed into meaningful and almost entirely separate subfields of logic, theoretical computer science and linguistics but they have strong common historical roots. I could be convinced to delete this cat but it certainly won't be on the grounds of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2011 (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:Move to names suggested by User:Necrothesp. Necrothesp also suggested two other categories to be renamed; however, neither of these were tagged for renaming, and so they should probably be tagged and have their own discussion (might be eligible for speedy under C2 part B or C, but I'm not sure on this). Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It's usual to use the party names in category names that correspond to the WP article about the party. "Conservative Members of the National Assembly of Wales" is somewhat ambiguous, because "Conservative" is a party but it could also mean small-c "conservative", and not all conservatives are Conservatives. You'd be looking at "Welsh Conservative Party Members of the National Assembly for Wales", and so forth. It also seems relatively standard to permit abbreviations like this once we get past the top parent level category Category:Members of the National Assembly for Wales. See, eg, subcategories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, where "MPs" is commonly used. "MPs" is better known than "AMs", but I'm not sure there would be a principled distinction. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think MPs should be expanded too, but at least it's a well-known term throughout much of the English-speaking world, whereas AMs is not. As to the party names, fair enough on the "Conservative Party" bit (although possibly a little pedantic), but putting "Wales/Welsh" in twice looks a bit like overkill to me, particularly since they're not actually separate parties, but simply the Welsh wings of the UK national parties. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a clear consensus to expand the abbreviation in this one case, I would be inclined to keep using the standard formats for both using party names followed by the appropriate abbreviation for the position. I do know there has been pretty vigorous opposition to expanding the "MPs" in other categories, but as you say some legislator abbreviations are not as well known as these. "MLAs" is also in wide usage in the Canadian and Indian category trees. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Necrothesp for maximum clarity. Tim! (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Necrothesp. I didn't know what an AM was until I read the discussion. Snappy (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2011 (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:Flinders University of South Australia[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:self-close. Rename performed by category creator.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. I just called it by its official name, but as "no-one else" seems to, there seems little point to it being different. Discussion closed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2011 (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:Malayalam movies with non-Malayalam Title[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This appears to be a category for Malayalam-language films that have a title that uses English-language words (or at least "non-Malayalam"-language words). This seems trivial to me, and we generally categorize films by their language, not by what language is or is not used in their titles. I suggest upmerging it to its parent. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know whether this category is against general wikipedia policy. But what I can say is that the category, being a collection of films with a common feature, is really useful. And I strongly oppose merging it with any other category. -- Arfaz (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this category may not violate the Wikipedia Policy regarding same or shared name as they do not share same name but only a common trait. Films are generally categorised in every possible way. Refer Category:Films. Films have been categorised based on genre, topic, date source, director, producer, studio and also settings, shooting location, source, city of location, debut, type of technology used etc. I propose retaining this category. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline extends also to categorization "by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself". Genre, topic, director, producer, setting, shooting location, technology used, and so on, all are characteristics of the films themselves, not just of their titles. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We don't categorize films by shared characteristics of their names.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2011 (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 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article and category, Babyface (musician) and Category:Babyface (musician). Note also that "Babyface" was the name of two bands, so adding the parenthetical disambiguator helps to avoid confusion between the musician and the musical groups. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per clarity and consistency. Occuli (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The article name has changed since I created the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is ambiguously named. Not only is there a crime commonly known by this title, meaning that any articles on the crime of "grand theft auto" can be reasonably categorized here, there is also a famous movie by this title. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2011 (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:Delete as there's nothing left in the category to merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given the indie/auteur nature of much of Native American film, it seems as if all of the artists fall under the broader banner of "filmmakers," who direct as well as producer, write, etc.. Indeed, I had moved Alanis Obomsawin, who also self-produces, leaving only one article left in the source category, who also handles filmmaking duties beyond just directing. I've just added the target category as a parent: shall we upmerge until such time as we have Native American film directors who are not groupable as filmmakers? I've created several Indigenous filmmaker categories, and this is the only one where we have a director/filmmaker split. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2011 (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.
