Category:St. Anthony's College (Katugasthota) Alumni[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. I've created a redirect at the non-diacritic form. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:12, 7 March 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:Presidents of the United States by century[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, and nominate the child categories for deletion. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category exists simply to contain categories of presidents by century, but I feel this is unnecessary as all presidents are contained in Category:Presidents of the United States. Why do we need to categorize them by century? Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not generally in favour of "by century" categories in any case. They're pretty pointless, since many people overlap centuries. But in this case there just aren't enough articles to make it at all worthwhile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should add the subcategories to this; you can't just tag the parent container if you want to delete the whole structure. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and its subcats too There aren't that many US presidents and in any case there are better era categorizations. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMangoe. There are not all that many US Presidents altogether, so that a split navigation aid is not needed. The list of presidents will provide them in order for those ho want them so. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 4 March 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, note the main article was moved in the other direction. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think there needs to be as case made for this being the common name. I looked through the list of townships and which some of them commonly have township attached when referring to them some do not including East Brunswick. So unless the case can be made that township is in common usage, the category should not be moved and the article moved instead. It looks like someone tried to move the article but there was an error and the move was reverted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I offer no opinion here on whether the title of the article should include the word "Township" or not, which is a discussion that should be addressed at the talk page for the article in question. Concerns regarding "common usage" have no relevance to anything other than a discussion of a page move. Disregarding a brief period of a few minutes when the article was improperly renamed "EastBrunswick" (without a space, a comma or a state), the article has existed stably for more than eight years as "East Brunswick Township, New Jersey" since it was created in 2002. The issue at hand is if the title of the article and the category should match, and there appears to be no justification to perpetuate this discrepancy. Keeping the two different only creates needless confusion. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It's usually a good idea for the category name to match the article name. For now I think this should be named, and if the article name ever changes based on WP:COMMONNAME arguments, then the category could be moved back. But it doesn't look like there are any impending efforts to move the article, so rename the category per nom. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:39, 28 February 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:MERGE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "People from Foo" refers to people who were born or brought up in a place, not people who just live there. "Residents of Foo" seems fairly irrelevant, since people often move around. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – we have been using the standard 'from' in this wider sense for years. Occuli (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - in actual usage what constitutes being "from" somewhere is always debatable. Is Mitt Romney from Massachusetts or just Michigan? He was born and brought up in Michigan and did not go to Massachusetts until starting graduate school. What state is Barack Obama from? What about George H. W. Bush? The question of if someone counts as from a given place is complexed. If you study some of the sub-categories under from you will find that faculty of foo (college or university) is at times a sub-category of people from foo (city) where that university is located. However from-ness is generally seen to be more difficult to achieve than residentness. From-ness is something that shapes and forms a person at some level, residentness than is not from-ness inherently does not do this. It is not only an opening up of categorizing many academics in headache causing ways, but will also lead to way to many double categorizations. To give myself as an example I have only ever been from Sterling Heights, Michigan but I have also been a resident of Ypsilanti, Michigan, Las Vegas, Nevada, Henderson, Nevada]] and Provo, Utah by some standards. The two Nevada locations are a bit iffy, the other two are not. It is only that low because the eight places I lived in Utah were are in Provo and we rarely break-down from-ness or residence by neighborhood. If we did by neighborhood I lived in 3 in Provo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- the distinction between the two is too fine to be worth having. A person may be from several places, inclusing place of birth and current residence. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be true in other countries, but in the UK "People from Foo" cats we have attempted to maintain the meaning of "born or brought up in". Generally this has been pretty successful and it would be nice if we could continue to maintain this without cats such as this being merged in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge or delete. Being "from" a place is not solely a matter of having been born there; a person is "from" anywhere that they've lived for long enough for that period of residence to be worth noting in the first place — and if it's really so very critical for the UK to maintain a unique distinction that isn't the norm anywhere else, then we simply don't need the "residents" category at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 4 March 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 to fix the capitalization issue (at least) and use "teams" to match parent category and similar categories in other countries. Pichpich (talk) 14:41, 27 February 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:KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has just been moved from the latter to the former as a speedy request. I don't think this should have been done. All of the other countries in Category:Films by country are formatted as "Nation films". There shouldn't really be any confusion over Georgia the country and the US state in this case, as we don't categorize American films by state. A simple note on the category page to say that it's for the country would avoid any issue, and commonsense should apply in this case. Lugnuts (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it does not matter if we do not categorize American films by state, as it would mean that any possible editor would never categorize films by state, were this move to occur, instead of having to always patrol it to remove articles some person who wants to categorize films by US state would fill into it. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Georgian anything unless you are speaking of the language should be avoided in categories. I am not sure why there is such insistence on using the adjetivized form of country names at all cost in categorizing things. However in the case of written or spoken output (plays, poems, books, films, television programs, songs, etc) I would say that we must remember that if the term can also be a language, as Georgian is, than we have potential confusion even if it is 100% clear what place is designatd by the term in question, which is never the case with Georgian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Please use common sense. - Darwinek (talk) 13:41, 2 March 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.
Comment I see that The Laramie Project is claimed by both parent articles, neither of which is brimming over with citations. But at least docudrama is an unquestionably established term. I think this category issue isn't resolvable without dealing with the notability or merger of documentary theatre. Mangoe (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Docudrama is an established form, though I am more used to it on TV than in theatre. The object is to present historical events in dramatic form, which is different from other forms of historic drama, which often have an element of fiction in them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 4 March 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. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I first thought that this was a user category and I thought it made some (mild) sense. But this is intended to be a category period and that's not justified. Medpedia is a fine project but few if any people are primarily recognized as Medpedia editors so the classification is not sufficiently meaningful. (not a defining characteristic if people want a keyword.) Pichpich (talk) 03:57, 27 February 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:Upmerge The category doesn't contain lists: it contains writers (in this case, just one writer but it's still a valid choice of category). Pichpich (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. They are the same thing. Can it be Speedy? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge. It's a fairly common and recurring misconception among newer editors that categories should be named in the format Category:List of X rather than just Category:X. I can understand nominating for a rename discussion in cases where "X" doesn't already exist, since there might be outstanding questions about the best name for the replacement category — but there's no real need to discuss it for a whole week in this case, since "X" already exists and "List of X" only has one article in it anyway. Oy gevalt, I didn't notice that both categories were created by the same user at the same time. Merge definitely appropriate, as they're the same thing, but I should point out that we also already have an existing and populated Category:Writers of Mithila. Can anybody speak to whether that's sufficiently the same thing as to warrant merging both of the new categories to that one instead, or is there a linguistic "Maithili" vs. geographic "of Mithila" distinction which we should maintain because they won't necessarily contain identical sets? Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 4 March 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.
