Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 21 July 23 >

July 22[edit]

Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre[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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These two categories appears to constitute a redundant intermediate level which would have made some sense if they were part of a global scheme, but that seems not to be the case. It looks to me as there would be no negative consequences of simply removing these category and allow all their members to go directly into their one parent, Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups/Category:Swedish heavy metal musical groups. __meco (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have just learned about the existence of another three categories,
I am now unsure how to proceed with this nomination, especially so as this added level is also present one level up, i.e.,
My principal contention remains, however, that this level seems unneeded and that removing it would not cause the categories which would be the upmerge targets to become crowded or difficult to assess or otherwise deal with. __meco (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep these are well developed category trees running into several 100 articles. It seems this is a working set of categories, even if they are only applied within a few nationalities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding nomination:


  • I have no objection to this expansion, leaving out America (United States). It would be feasible to also include this category as there exists an adequate solution for that particular situation where there exists two axes of sub-categorization: by genre and by state. That alternative solution would entail giving all state-categorized sub-categories a sort key of the state name preceded by an asterisk (e.g. |*Nevada). That would not be awkward in my opinion. __meco (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I completely agree with you. __meco (talk) 23:36, 24 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:Chemistry prefixes[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leave out used.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would imply the category is about the general use of prefixes, not a container for individual prefixes.- choster (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any grammar problem, and this is the standard format in Category:Affixes.- choster (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seems like bad grammar to me as chemistry isn't an adjective. I have noticed the Category:Language affix format, so not sure what you mean. Brad7777 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there some rule that we must use adjectives? Chemistry here is a noun adjunct. We use this form, admittedly unevenly, to avoid ambiguity: Educational books could mean Category:Education books or Category:Textbooks; and one might be tempted to place Journal of William Maclay in a category called Category:Historical journals but not one called Category:History journals.- choster (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No, there are no rules. In this case, I do not see how using "chemistry prefixes" instead of "prefixes used in chemistry" or "prefixes in chemistry" is avoiding ambiguity? (Although i can see how my suggestion is not improving it.) Maybe the category could be less ambiguous by renaming it to Category:Chemical prefixes? Brad7777 (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment that would increase the scope of the category beyond the field of chemistry. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oppose new proposal per Choster. I see no reason to expand scope of the category beyond the field of chemistry, to allow street-drug prefixes into the category, or marketing chemical prefixes. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment/question I thought all chemicals were studied in chemistry. + I'm not sure what the problem is increasing the scope beyond the field of chemistry. I guess it is possibly because all the current prefixes are specifically relevant to organic chemistry? In which case, would Category:Prefixes of organic compounds be prefered? Brad7777 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Chemical nomenclature. I see no reason to subdivide this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See related discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:40, 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.

Category:Chemistry suffixes[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: keep. No prejudice against immediate renomination for a rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See related discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oppose upmerge, as it is (now) a useful sub-cat of Category:Suffixes. I have no objection to Brad7777's suggested rename, but there may be scope for further pages such as -ide, -ate, -ic and -ous which I think are inorganic (those with blue links are currently redirects to Wiktionary). – Fayenatic London 19:52, 23 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:Cthulhoid[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Cthulhoid" is not a word, its meaning is not apparent, and the category offers no definition. A Google search shows no useful results; the fact that the category itself is one of the first of them demonstrates just how esoteric and unhelpful the term is. Judging by its contents, which range from Zoidberg to Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean), "Cthulhoid" seems to mean "things with tentacles on their faces", which is hardly a classification of any encyclopedic value. —Flax5 17:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it might be better to make a category for tentacle monsters instead (thus you can include Krakens, and various Japanese fictional monsters) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment or rename to squid-faced humanoids, which I think all of these are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I have created a page List of squid-faced humanoids to replace it. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • hehe. interesting page - tv tropes calls them cthulhumanoid: [1]; the article may be in trouble from the AfD crowd, but maybe they will let it be.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of this thing works much better than a category. This actually applies to lots of fictional-character traits in part because many of the articles are going to be redirects to articles about shows featuring the character. The other problem is that at times these categories end up having lots of articles that are about shows named after characters who have the trait, not the characters themselves. Lists are just better for this stuff, and categories do not do well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 28 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:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by illegal baggage[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only 1 entry and its a unreferenced one. No where in the media reports does it say carrying a crocodile in your baggage is illegal. ...William 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sounds clearly enough like wildlife smuggling to me. Someone has added a sub-cat: Category:Airliner bombings. Just about enough to keep? – Fayenatic London 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Illegal overloading by a state governor was reported as a possible cause of the crash of Mandala Airlines Flight 091 but not mentioned in the official report. There may well be more scope to expand this category. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overloading has been a cause of airline crashes. Viasa Flight 742 being probably the most infamous. Trans Service Airlift Lockheed L-188 crash, where the aircraft had approximately 40 more people on board than is normal, also being noteworthy. But the category is worded 'illegal baggage'. BTW the Mandala article's reference makes no mention of a governor saying overloading was the cause of the crash. I just removed the section for that and other reasons. Back to the category, SMALLCAT still applies. This is not a category that's going to fill up, even if the crash in question fits it. There is no information at this time that says it does....William 15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record: no, the governor did not say anything after the Mandala flight; he was dead. I partly reinstated the section and moved the citations inline. Not that it matters for this CfD. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am in agreement with the nom. "Illegal baggage" is never a cause of any accident or incident; the cause is always something else: overloading, an explosive stored in baggage, greed (smuggling) mixed with stupidity (an improperly secured crocodile in a duffel bag (seriously?) in an enclosed space thousands of feet above the ground). The fact is that nothing fits here naturally: the role and presence of the crocodile in the 2010 Filair crash is unconfirmed and classifying an airline bombing as a baggage violation is like classifying a suicide car bombings as a traffic violation—technically correct, perhaps, but irrelevant. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, good points; delete. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that ValuJet Flight 592 would have been the category's obvious entry. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is really too specialized a possible cause to be worth tracking. The bombings is a totally different section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 28 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.

Female racing drivers by series[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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are trivial triple-intersections of gender, occupation and series. Although the parent category is justified by the fact that female racing drivers appears to be a topic of cultural interest, the same cannot be said of these categories as gender has no specific relation to any racing series. Category:Female racing drivers is not so large (~100 articles) as to urgently need subdivision; if or when such subdivision takes place, nationality would be a much more natural and useful (in terms of our category structure) line of division than series. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:17, 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.

Category:Alumni of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Newly created category is redundant, and probably misnamed (according to fraternity's WP article and common practice, initiates are considered members for life). Fat&Happy (talk) 15:18, 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.

People by categorization, pre-1XX0 birth stubs[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: keep. Every article of this type should have a year category. Since there is no agreement on what that category should be, and no consensus to delete, these stay for now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose upmerging the following categories:

Rationalles:

  1. The question of which decades have enough stubs for their own categories is, in my opinion, too fluid to keep renaming these categories all the time.
  2. Frequently, these categories end up being too small and being upmerged anyway; I see no reason to keep a few of these arouind.
  3. Decades in the middle, or even recent decades, may end up requiring upmerging; I see no reason why being "old enough" is a justification for havin g a category.
  4. Some times there are cases where the year of birth is definitely earlier than the specified year, but is unknown; such people would end up in the parent category, not here.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Australian rules biography, pre-1880 birth stubs - I'm not going to comment on the other sports, but the Australian rules stub cat is very nicely balanced, with 125 articles in the pre-1880 cat, which matches the size of most of the other pre-1970s cats, so your point 2 doesn't apply. There are no "middle decades" missed, so point 3 is moot too. The advantage of NOT upmerging is that the Category:Australian rules biography stubs is left with only people that we DON'T know the DOB of. It's a very useful distinction (I've just noticed a bunch of umpires in the parent stub cat, checked a recent season guide book, and their DOBs are all there). The-Pope (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the Australian rules category, 104 have the 1870s tag, which leaves 18 stubs for the pre-1870 - an excelent example of point 2. And Dave Boyd, an active player in 1870, would need to be in a pre-1870 category, if we had one, as he was an active player in 1870 - an example for #3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dave Boyd played in the 1940's and 1950's, so was probably born in the 1920's. But your point stands in that AFL stubs are lacking a tag which directly adds to the pre-18X0 category. The reason I like having the category is first to keep unknown birth year separate, and secondly because it does refer to the era of the sport's development (1859-1880 or so). --Qetuth (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that having by all articles with known birth dates in by decade or pre-decade stub cats, and only unknown birthdates in the parent stub cat is useful, and unlike AFDs, it's useful should count here. If you want to extend it by one decade to pre-1870s that's about the limit of most known football history. We are unlikely to bring the numbers down dramatically in the near future, as we still have over 6000 known notable players left to create. The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked around other categories to see why this isn't more widespread, I noticed that most other decade of birth stub categories have a parent category on century to be upmerged into, keeping them seperate fom unsorted/unknown. It doesn't help for the American ones, but the other three could perhaps benefit from this? (Example: Category:American journalist, 20th century birth stubs and Category:American journalist, 19th century birth stubs). --Qetuth (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge specif time frame birth stubs work, but pre-x birth stubs just seem too much like the heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really sure what you mean by "heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present" but again, for Australian rules football only, the game was only invented in the last 1850s, with leagues not established until the 1880s, so there aren't that many notable people born prior to 1880. It is a stub cat that works for us. The-Pope (talk) 11:58, 13 August 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.

Women's history stubs[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: keep. No prejudice against a WP:BOLD renaming. The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed and badly formed template, and with the estimation of capturing 4,000 articles. I'm not particularly opposed to splitting along the line of women's history, but a category which holds 4,000 articles isn't useful. A request was filed at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot for Women.27s History project stubs to tag all articles within Category:Stub-Class Women's History articles - perhaps a misunderstanding of the different uses of the two systems. What to do is not obvious. If there can be appropriate splits found, then I'd be happy with keeping this template and category as a parent with cub categories below. If we are to keep this template, then at least it needs to be renamed to {{womens-hist-stub}}. If there are no apparent splits, then I don't think this type is useful beyond the already existing splits by nationality and profession. SeveroTC 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created this stub template, I don't have a problem with whatever you do to correct this. All aspects of this, including my bot request, have been a misunderstanding. But I want you to know, I didn't just wake up one day and decide to go off and create all these things. I was pointed that direction by some very well-meaning editors who thought they were helping.
My original intent was to set up a Tedder bot to daily generate a list of new articles created for WikiProject Women's History. That's how this began, but it was difficult to get any information on how to do this. Tedder can't set up a bot without search terms, etc. etc. And so I began searching for someone to get this done, mostly not finding answers or even replies.
I had been advised by an experienced editor to create such a stub, as a way to find new articles for a Tedder bot for WikiProject Women's History. I was completely unaware that stub templates needed to be proposed and approved. I had also been advised to run an AWB after the template was created. I don't deal with AWB, so I input a bot request.
The creation of the category was proposed by another editor who said this could correct it. Two different editors telling me two different things that both felt would have been correct. Finger pointing after the horse ran out of the barn isn't the answer. All I wanted - really - was somebody to set up an automated daily Tedder bot so that project could see a daily list of new articles created. My intent, like theirs, was to do something good for that project. This has taken on a life of its own, but we need to get all this corrected, as cleanly and quickly as possible. Maile66 (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems an acceptable way to group stubs. Whether the contents are correct does not determine whether the idea itself works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 28 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:Rajasthan (Indian Premier League) cricketers[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:Rajasthan Royals cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Rajasthan Royals. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:19, 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.

Category:Punjab (Indian Premier League) cricketers[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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kings XI Punjab. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:19, 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.

Category:Pune cricketers[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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Pune Warriors India. Since many players are not native to Pune, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:18, 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.

Category:Mumbai (Indian Premier League) cricketers[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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Mumbai Indians. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:17, 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.

Category:Kolkata cricketers[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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kolkata Knight Riders. Since many players are not native to Kolkata, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:16, 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.

Category:Delhi (Indian Premier League) cricketers[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:Delhi Daredevils cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Delhi Daredevils. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:15, 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.

Category:Chennai cricketers[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:Chennai Super Kings cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Chennai Super Kings. Since many players are not native to Chennai, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:12, 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.

Category:Bangalore cricketers[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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore. Since many players are not native to Bangalore, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:11, 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.

Category:Kochi cricketers[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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kochi Tuskers Kerala. Since many players are not native to Kochi, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:17, 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.

Category:Objects by status[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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think all these categories can simply be placed in Category:Objects, status would also include physical objects presumably, so why is there a split at this juncture? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unnecessary and unobvious layer. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Upmerge to Category:Objects. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as an unneccesary level of categorization. I think this may be an artifact of the old system that made it more difficult to find sub-cats when a category also had a significant number of articles directly in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 28 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:Objects by topic[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:Objects by type. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Topic seems more vague. its parent cat, Categories by topic, holds categories with many different naming structures. Some of these are, or may also, belong in Category:Physical objects (I added some categories before writing this suggestion, but i dont think i removed any categories, which is not kosher) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather a weird category. Should be named "Objects by type" rather than "Types of objects" I think, though the sub-cats contain both articles on types and articles on individual objects. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Rename to Category:Objects by type, as the sub-cats mainly contain articles about individual objects, rather than general pages about types of objects. – Fayenatic London 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Objects by type is much better by far than my suggestion, which is one reason i brought it here, to get other perspectives.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename' to Category:Objects by type. This is the best suggestion I have seen thus far. __meco (talk) 07:42, 24 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:Film redirects[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: do not delete for now. This is so close to the other category that confusion will arise, but Mirokado seems to have a plan, so that can be put into place. If this is empty after that, it can be speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: How is this different from Category:Redirects from films? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose merging, support tidy up and delete, details follow:
    Redirects from films is populated by {{R from film}} and has a clear definition of scope: title of film to a more general article. Film redirects is populated by adding [[Category:Film redirects]]. It has (currently) no documentation but is clearly being used to indicate redirects to an article about the same film-related subject (film, festival etc) under a different title, which can be, for example:
    and various combinations of the above (to different language with disambiguator etc)
    We can probably find suitable generic R from/to templates for each of these cases and should add them anyway (they are missing on the redirects I have checked). That will I think need to be done by hand, preferably before the category is zapped. I am happy to help.
    It is of course desirable for WikiProject Film to be able to identify all "its" redirects which fulfil these purposes. The way do that is probably to add {{WikiProject Film|class=redirect}} to each redirect talk page so we can do multi-category searches (roll on a better user interface for those...). A bot can do that while dealing with the category. We probably don't want too great a proliferation of specialised administrative categories per-project so as long as we can retain the distinction as I suggest or otherwise I would support deleting this category.
    I think it would blur the contents of Redirects from films to add these redirects to it, so I would not support that. --Mirokado (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    update I have now added an R-* template to each member of this category, along with a few other improvements, so the way is clear for the purely mechanical changes. --Mirokado (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose merging ín agreement with Mirokado — Robert Greer (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead of merging, it should be handled by {{film|class=redirect}} instead -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:34, 23 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:Brethren denominations[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:Schwarzenau Brethren denominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Brethren, the Plymouth Brethren are completely unrelated to the Church of the Brethren. I suppose renaming to something like Category:Schwarzenau Brethren denominations might do the trick as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think this needs to be split so that each of the groups in Brethren has a separate category. These might have the present category, as an ultiamte parent, despite being unrelated. The problem is more with the North American sub-cat, which is getting in the way of creating a rational tree, based on theological views. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are also Methodist and other groups that use brethren in their name. There is no clear group that can be easily designated as "brethren denominations" and the current name will tend to link unlike things. There are better names for everything involved, so we should just delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:40, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_22&oldid=1074809091"