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:The Office task force, et al. The issue of whether these task force projects should have "WikiProject" at the front would benefit from a global nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of this task force is no longer narrow; instead, it is broader in favor of original version and other versions of The Office. --George Ho (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your clarification is much appreciated. I've revised my comment accordingly. -- Black Falcon(talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the current name or the proposed name "Wikipedia The Office task force" is fine by me. The proposal by Black Falcon is not acceptable to me. Administrative categories should be distinctly indicated, and not look like content categories. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, then, that your issue lies with task force categorization conventions in general, since almost all such categories do not include the 'Wikipedia' prefix and adding it will require a much wider discussion than this one. -- Black Falcon(talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects are named with "WikiProject", that is standard. Task forces are elements of WikiProjects, so going by WikiProject convention, should include the WikiProject name as part of its category name -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent for using "Wikipedia" or "WikiProject" has already been established, all we need to do is get all the rest of the TF/WG's to be renamed, per the created precedents (resulting from recent requests of George Ho's; and why someone wants to trout George Ho) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The convention of using 'WikiProject' has been established for WikiProject categories only, not for task forces or work groups. Two or three very recent discussions about individual categories is not enough, in my opinion, to overturn an established convention used for hundreds of categories. As for using the 'Wikipedia' prefix, the category naming guideline still recommends it mainly for those cases where it is needed to prevent confusion with a content category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:28, 22 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:rename. The issue of whether these task force projects should have "WikiProject" at the front would benefit from a global nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I've converted WP:DAD into a task force. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. Needs to include "Wikipedia" as these are project categories, not content categories. You should know this by now. Support a renaming to "Dad's Army Wikipedia task force" format. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to reflect the naming of Dad's Army and the convention of Category:WikiProject Television task forces. I oppose the inclusion of 'Wikipedia' unless the same is applied to all task force categories (an issue for another discussion). Currently, virtually all task force categories do not include the 'Wikipedia' prefix and, in my opinion, generally have no need of it. The 'Wikipedia' prefix usually is applied to general-purpose project categories (i.e., those intended to be used by many editors), which this is not, and in cases where it "is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This needs to include "Wikipedia" or "WikiProject". These are Project related categorizations and not content categorizations, so should be indicated as such, per Bushranger. Further, all Project categorizations should carry Wikipedia or WikiProject as part of their name, since they are not content and should be distinguished form such. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then that calls for a change to the categorization guideline, which calls for the 'Wikipedia' prefix primarily in cases where it "is needed to prevent confusion with content categories", such as Category:Wikipedia tools. Also, it calls for a different approach: a general discussion to rename all task force categories, of which almost all currently do not include either 'Wikipedia' or 'WikiProject', instead of many isolated discussions focusing on individual task forces. -- Black Falcon(talk) 14:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects are named with "WikiProject", that is standard. Task forces are elements of WikiProjects, so going by WikiProject convention, should include the WikiProject name as part of its category name -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid repetition, I ask that you please see my reply in the discussion above. -- Black Falcon(talk) 15:23, 20 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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge to all parents. Small categories, unlikely to be expanded. (The two pages in the second nominated category are already in Category:Medieval women poets so do not need to be merged there. Although I also suggested merging Category:Medieval women poets at CFD June 6 since it is currently small, it can clearly be expanded.) – FayenaticLondon 21:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge there is no reason we need to subdivide out women poets at all possible points. It seems to me that despite directives to the contrary, we have seperate women categories for almost every possible occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 19 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.
Category:Citation templates using redundant parameters[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.
I plan on updating the cite templates that support this to use the main category. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 12:45, 19 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Tamil playback singers and delete this. Our articles don't use Kollywood as a term, only Tamil cinema, therefore the parent category is the better titled one. And, Kollywood itself is just a redirect to Tamil cinema. —SpacemanSpiff 17:26, 18 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.
Nominator's rationale: It has never been the convention to sub-categorize alumni by year. It opens a can of worms (what if someone graduated undergrad from SCHOOL X in 1987 and then got a master's from the same school in 1989, for example). Jrcla2 (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, maybe Some of these alumni categories are enormous. USNA has well over a thousand; West Point has even more, and Harvard has seven thousand! Certainly in the case of the service academies there is some interest in those who graduated together, most famously the class the stars fell on (USMA 1915). Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Size of a category is irrelevant and not an argument for keeping it. Want to make that case for why Category:Living people shouldn't exist? Because if you do, it is directly applicable to this one. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with Category:Living people is that everyone eventually dies; being alive is plainly not defining. I don't see that as having a lot of relevance to this case. Mangoe (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:United States Naval Academy alumni. There is no upper size limit on categories. The class year of people is not all that defining, especially when you consider that many of the people in some of these categories were getting Ph.D.s where the year they finished is only lossly connected to when they did their course work. We have really never agreed to categorize people by date other than birth and death, and I do not think this is a good place to change that agreement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the case of the service academies, I would disagree. The rough era of graduation at least has an enormous effect on the future of military officers, as evidenced by the case I cited above. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep USNA is always exactly 4 years long with no graduate degrees offered, so Jrcla2's and Johnpacklambert's arguments about graduate degrees/studies do not apply here. I definitely agree with Mangoe that there is strong interest in what the various notable members of a USNA class have done. If it weren't for this subcategory, for example, few people would realize that USNA 1987 has both an astronaut currently in the ISS, as well as an NBA Hall of Fame member. Also, Jrcla2 argues that there would be confusion if a person had two class years (doesn't happen at USNA), but that is no more confusing than if a person were in both the Basketball and Football subcategories. Tom Hubbard (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our arguments do apply. "Alumni" does not necessitate graduating. Someone who attended one day of classes is an alumnus, it doesn't mean they have to have stuck it out all four years. It's not more confusing than a sports subcategory because those sports subcategories speak to a broader WP:CATTREE of both USNA alumni and of all other respective college athletes per sport in the United States. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an astronaut currently on the ISS was in this class is irrelevant to whether or not the category should be kept - WP:ITSUSEFUL aside, we don't categorise based on "current/former", an area that argument wanders into. - The BushrangerOne ping only
Yes, Un-named, I should have said that the class has a member who has been *formerly* shot to the ISS twice and has an NBA Hall of Fame member. Interesting group this class of 1987 of about 1000 people. Tom Hubbard (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - there is no class-by-year tree for USNA graduates, and I don't see any reason for one to be created. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia catergorises sports players by team. Wikipedia does not categorise alumni by class. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the thousands of established categories, cumulatively, of NCAA baseball, men's & women's basketball, football, men's & women's soccer, men's & women's golf, track and field, and tennis athlete subcategories that exist per standard subcategorization. Not a single category, anywhere, ever, can be found for another alumni divided by year. They are not at all similar to alumni by year, because their years are irrelevant. By categorizing alumni by year it implies a graduation date, which according to the definition of "alumni" is not necessitated. Alumni do not necessarily have to be graduates.Jrcla2 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Jrcla2, alumni do not have to be graduates. That is why this category is about 1987 alumni. If you made it through Induction Day at USNA on July 6, 1983, then you are an alumnus of the USNA class of 1987 -- no graduation date is necessary. Tom Hubbard (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's very misleading nonetheless. It's completely reasonable to assume that if someone is classified under an alumni of 1987 category, that that person graduated in 1987. Here's an example: This past season, Kentucky basketball star Anthony Davis was a freshman, which means he was an anticipated alumnus for Kentucky Class of 2015. But then he was taken in the NBA Draft and will not graduate from Kentucky (probably ever, but certainly not in 2015). Your rationale dictates that he should be included in Category:University of Kentucky Class of 2015. That's an entirely untrue and misleading category for Davis. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge non-standard, excessive level of detail. Like 1987 Pulitzer prize winners. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Agree that this is overcategorization that would result in tens of thousands of categories that don't have all that much value to most users. If a given class is really special, then it might be worthy of an article (like the one linked by Mangoe above). Rikster2 (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per TomHubbard: "If it weren't for this subcategory, for example, few people would realize that USNA 1987 has both an astronaut currently in the ISS, as well as an NBA Hall of Fame member." Hmm, how about following standard Wikipedia list article practice and go to List of United States Naval Academy alumni? It's a much more accessible solution. There would be no way for a user to know that an astronaut and an NBA Hall of Famer were in the class of 1987 via this newly created subcategory unless that user clicked on every single article within that subcategory, so there is no useful navigation feature about it. In the prose section of that list article I just proposed there could be a sentence indicating the notable class of 1987ers. A subcategory is excessive, and per Rikster2 it would snowball into tens of thousands of useless alumni by year subcats. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we allow this category, there is no way we will be able to limit categories of this type to the military academies. Even there, the one person I actually know who graduated from West Point resigned to serve a 2-year LDS mission, so his year of graduating did not match up with those he entered the institution with. What with transfering, taking time off, taking 5 years to graduate and what not, even where we can find a graduation date at other universities and colleges this becomes less unifying. Once you consider that at many universities a large percentage of those in alumni categories recieved masters or Ph.D.s from those institutions this clearly becomes a case where we group together a non-coherent group. It just might work with USNA, but we do not want that precedent, because it will not work anywhere else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as others have said. This is splitting too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 22 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.
Nominator's rationale: Is this a defining feature? Some kind of albums are only released on all kinds of formats... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's inevitable that this will become the norm. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what policy is this breaking? I see no evidence from the nominator or the delete vote. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly how music is released is not relevant to what it is. Beyond this, the existence of the work "only" makes this a category where the countents need to be patrolled, because it is always possible the album will be released in another matter. "Only x" is never a good category name, we do not have Category:American people of only Irish descent and that is not as fluid as this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is plenty of precedent for deleting "by-common-format" categories. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 19 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.
Nominator's rationale: These two categories cover the same position; the Auditor's office became that of the Controller in 1925. Per the standard procedure for this sort of thing, they should all be in the same category, under the current name. The BushrangerOne ping only 05:00, 18 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:rename. The "British" part doesn't yet seem to be needed, but can be added if the need arises.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename per nom. I raised the initial objection at WP:CFD/S, but I'm unable to offer (and no one else has offered) a better suggestion. I appreciate the nom bringing this to full CfD so that additional ideas, if there are any, could be proposed. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, categories should not be overly ambiguous. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pickup Truck Racing (British series), alternative suggested by nominator (The Bushranger) at Speedy page. IMHO the additional disambiguating word "British" helps, and is desirable as we like category names to be more clear than articles (e.g. to help editors using WP:HOTCAT). – FayenaticLondon 22:42, 19 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.
Category:Formula Three Euro Series Champions[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 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 26. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)