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 C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matches the current standard I believe. Brad7777 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is consistent with the naming convention for articles where disambiguation is needed (WP:PRECISION). RockMagnetist (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per above linas (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2012 (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.
Mmm Category:Transport ministers by country I would go the other way and merge Category:French Ministers of Transportation into Transport ministers of France for consistency's sake.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- I cannot find the French title of the present holder but his predecessor was "secrétaire d'État chargé des Transports" -- literally "Secretary of State charged with Transports". In English, "Transport" is a collective noun and thus does not take the plural, hence Category:Transport ministers of France is appropriate. Transportation appears to follow an American tendency to use a longer word where a shorter one will do. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Ministers of Transport (France). - Darwinek (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2012 (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.
Oppose. The proposed targey category seems to be too vague. Surely all of physics is a collection of "concepts". Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree, and I would be tempted to create sub-cats for experiments, equations, theorems etc (concepts with specified structures). I would say delete Category:Fundamental physics concepts altogether, but I think the possible organizational/symbiotic function for this tree, split by concept instead of context; would be beneficial to Category:Physics as a whole. Brad7777 (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support, per Rockmagnetist. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yuck, I was going to agree with Sławomir but, after looking at what it actually contains, its clear that its poorly defined: people have been treating it as a dumping ground for generic "concepts" which means they've dumped everything in there. Currently, its being treated as if it's name were Category:Topics in physics. Categories hould have clear boundaries as to what belongs, and what doesn't. It seems that this category has no clear boundary. linas (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my comments above. Indeed, this should be the category of "all concepts in physics". Why? Wouldn't Category:Physics do? No, it wouldn't, because the later includes things like "physics societies", "physics journals", etc. which are not pure topics. So having a generic dumping ground for all concepts is appropriate, and this cat already seems to be that. linas (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The proposed name would be consistent with the other members of Category:Concepts by field. However, the category is indeed vague, and most members should be distributed among subcategories. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The current name has too much value judgement in its form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2012 (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:upmerge all to Category:Gaelic footballers who switched code, as well as (per BrownHairedGirl) to the appropriate (County) Gaelic footballers. Although the Manchester–Arsenal comparison might have been "erroneous", that was not the central issue. According to current categorization guidelines, category intersections of this type are appropriate if the intersection is not narrow (i.e., either one or both parents requires diffusion) or non-trivial (i.e., the intersection represents a unique topic of scientific or social interest). In this case, consensus is that Category:Gaelic footballers who switched code does not need diffusion at this time and it was not demonstrated that reliable sources directly connect switching code and county. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a lot of the articles are already in the appropriate Foo Gaelic Footballers category, but an upmerger will ensure that none are omitted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is irrelevant, and I think you have missed the point of the categories. I can see the point of categorising players by county, but categorising players who have switched code by county is downright ridiculous. – PeeJay 17:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the comparison is irrelevant why are you using it? And using it inaccurately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.252 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To show the absurdity of this intersection of categories. – PeeJay 17:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not showing it. The comparison itself is absurd to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the two sports. 86.40.108.252 (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are skirting around the issue. Why should Gaelic footballers who have switched code be categorised by club, county or anything else for that matter? – PeeJay 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not skirting around anything. You've used a comparison that simply doesn't make sense. --86.40.108.252 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered the question. Why should Gaelic footballers who have switched code be categorised by club, county or anything else? – PeeJay 18:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DIFFUSE, "It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused – some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category." You ask why should it be so but why should it not be so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.252 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you actually understand my complaint. Let me break it down for you in simple terms. What does the county a player is from have to do with the fact that they switched codes? These two things are completely unrelated and there is no reason for categories to exist that imply such an association. – PeeJay 18:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me break it down for you in simple terms. Here is a random newspaper article with the headline "Dubs delight". The "Dubs" of the title refers to Dublin, the county, coincidentally one of the counties mentioned in this discussion. Skip to the third from bottom paragraph and note the line "it is highly unlikely that any of those trio would switch codes". If, as you claim, a county and switching codes are "completely unrelated", then why does this newspaper link them, why does this newspaper appear to disagree with your largely uninformed assertion, an assertion based around a premise that compares apples and oranges?
And no, turning up on my talk page and telling me to "get over it" does not validate your point of view. If anything it weakens your argument that you feel the need to resort to such vile tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.252 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try staying on topic, would you? What's to say that a player from any other county would be just as unlikely to switch codes? – PeeJay 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge both all per BrownHairedGirl above. Oculi (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 20#Category:Transport ministers of France since the other category was not tagged (it is tagged now). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)