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. I created the category but made a spelling mistake. I've already created the category again with correct spelling. Sorry for the trouble. Pancakeysshi (talk) 22:21, 6 October 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 to Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request. This deals with the concern that "requesting" makes it sound like the article itself is making a request. And request, suggested/supported by several in some form, had extra "weight" since the name of the populating template is: Template:Infobox requested. - jc37 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I would like for this to be a discussion about the best naming convention for the many subcategories of this category. Currently, three naming conventions are in use: Foo articles without infoboxes (~35%), Foo articles needing infoboxes (~50%) and Foo articles needing an infobox (~15%).
I prefer the third option, for two reasons. First, the absence of an infobox is not necessarily a maintenance issue. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles, "[t]he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article" and hinges on "consensus among the editors at each individual article". In fact, at least one WikiProject (WikiProject Composers) discourages the use of infoboxes in biographical articles. The change from "without" to "needing" emphasizes that this is a maintenance category, and not merely a tracking category. Second, "needing an infobox" is, to my ear, more precise than "needing infoboxes". As a rule, each of the articles in question needs one infobox, not multiple infoboxes.
My core goal is, of course, to promote consistency and reduce duplication within the category tree. To that end, and assuming that this discussion produces a consensus for one of the three options, I intend to nominate the subcategories in a series of follow-up nominations or one mass nomination (depending on how much cleanup is needed along the way). Please note, also, that all (or almost all) of these categories are template-populated, so there will be no widespread disruption to article talk pages or user watchlists. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess to answer your question, there may be another to answer first. Are the infoboxes required or optional? Just because a project creates and encourages the use of an infobox does it make this mandatory? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that, no, they are not mandatory, and the categorization only serves to draw attention to the fact that at least one editor thought that an infobox would be appropriate. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all categories calling attention to the fact that an article is infobox-free. As an alternative, one could complement these categories with other categories and templates for articles with infoboxes encouraging their removal, or at least implying in some obvious way that the presence of the box is a problem. --Hegvald (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two situations are not directly comparable, in my opinion. Removing an infobox requires no more work than requesting its removal; however, adding an infobox requires considerably more work than requesting its addition. Of course, I sense that your alternative suggestion was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :) -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Category:Foo articles requesting an infobox" - I realize this would be more work (as none use this convention currently) however it seems potentially the clearest. —Quiddity (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. It would, however, introduce an entirely new convention – not just within this category tree but the whole of Category:Wikipedia maintenance. There are thousands of categories that use the "articles needing" vocabulary, but only three video-game-related categories that use "articles requesting". -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, and rename all sub-categories to Foo articles without infoboxes. "Without" a neutral way of noting the lack of an infobox, and avoids taking sides in the arguments about whether or not to have them. Depending on POV, "without" can be read as "needing an infobox" or as "spared the intrusion of an infobox". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, though: "without" is less clear and, therefore, fails to indicate whether this is merely a needless tracking category or a useful maintenance category. In light of the prevalence of infoboxes, I find it difficult to believe that a simple, non-binding request for an infobox could be overly controversial. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, normally. However, most of the subcategories are part of the category structure of one or more WikiProjects, whose "content" categories (i.e., those that directly contain talk pages) tend to use Foo articles ... rather than Wikipedia foo articles or even WikiProject foo articles. See, for instance, the titles of the subcategories of Category:WikiProject Louisville articles. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That hierarchy is highly misleading, since "X articles" has nothing to do with X, since the scope of the topic X is not the same as the scope of the WikiProject X (some wikiprojects specifically exclude subjects that are part of topic X, others include subjects that are not part of topic X, etc). Further they're all administrative and not content categories, so should all have "WikiProject" prepended to them. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that there was a way to upvote this comment. :) Your analysis is, of course, correct, and I also agree with your conclusion; however, changing that probably will require a full-blown RfC. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that I'm not totally enamoured of the idea of using a Wikipedia prefix for these types of categories, and would prefer Quiddity's wording except that it implies that the article is doing the requesting. RichFarmbrough, 14:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and rename subs to match. I am convinced by User:BrownHairedGirl's arguments above. Realistically this can only be a catch-all, because any drive-by editor who wants an infobox on an article without one could indicate a "need", similarly any drive-by editor happy with the current non-infobox state of the article noticing a "infobox needed" tag can just remove it as unneeded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Articles needing an infobox, Category:Wikipedia articles needing an infobox or something similar. Some of the other suggestions {without infoboxes) suggest that all articles need an infobox which I don't believe is true. Attempts to rename to without an infobox are also misdirected since some articles should have multiple infoboxes (Lighthouses and NRHP both should also have the building infobox as an example). The current name does not work. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 13 October 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 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Calling confectionery "candy" is an Americanism. The term is unusual in British English. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it didn't occur to me that this could be an WP:ENGVAR thing, as I discovered it for a Canadian company article I'd come across (since deleted). But note that we also have Category:American confectionery as the top-level, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as an american, i never noticed the usage issue brought up here. Since candy is not a straightforward synonym, but seems to historically refer mostly to sugar candy, and confectionery seems to include all forms of what we Americans call candy, it seems like we can live with this more global term, and maybe learn something new.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:22, 9 October 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: This category aims to be a mish-mash of all content related to the years 1941 and 1942 in Asia and the Pacific Ocean; or, to quote the category description, "[t]his category is for non-war pages, for WWII pages, & for concurrent wars' pages for 2 years in the areas within the Pacific Ocean borders, its marginal seas , and within the regions of Asia, e.g., Category:Southeast Asia (1942)." Fully populated, it would be unmanageable. Even in its current state, populated mostly by articles about WWII battles, it is still arbitrary in its choice to split out two particular years of the Pacific War.
Merge speedily before someone realizes they can sneak in articles about events in Iraq, Palestine and Siberia during those years and turn this into a total nightmare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 18 October 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: Rename all. The parent Category:Professorships by Institution shoukd follow the format of its parent Category:Academics by university, and the sub-categories should all be renamed to the format "Professorships of Foo", where Foo is the name of the head article on that university. Many of the current titles are ambiguous; there is more than one university in the cities of Glasgow and Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the individual institutional categories are concerned, more precise names are a good idea and seem uncontroversial, but I oppose renaming the main category: Not all professorships are located at universities. What about the ones at Gresham College or the Collège de France? I don't know about other countries but here in Sweden some head-of-department positions at museums and other research-oriented public institutions carry the title of "professor". I suspect that exceptions are common enough that the current title for this category is more universally valid. --Hegvald (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname all for exactness of names. Like the Dublin category (below) the Oxford one is potentially ambiguous, since I presume Oxford Brookes University has professorships. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support specific instituion renames however rename category to Professorships by university or college since such colleges as Darmouth College, College of William and Mary and Boston College among many others have enough professorships that creating categories for them could occur at some point in the future. Any since we already have King's College London in the mix it seems like we need to ackowledge universities and colleges are involved in this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename subcategories per nom and as for the parent category, rename to Category:Professorships by university or college per Johnpacklambert. (As a side note, we have a mixture of "...by university" and "...by university or college" categories that could perhaps do with some standardisation in due course). BencherliteTalk 17:02, 22 October 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.
PreferCategory:Professorships at Trinity College, Dublin. AS BHG has said the University of Dublin is in practice synonymous with Trinity college. However technically correct Univ of Dublin may be, for practical purposes it is misleading, since there are two other universities in Dublin. I am making this suggestion having checked that they are in fact all Trinity College professorships (I think); and I suspect there are more that ought to be added. Or is there soemthing else we should be merging it with? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Trinity College designation, which will them make my point that we should say Professorships by university or college even more valid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 18 October 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.
Energy resource facilities in the United States[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. There is a consensus that some restructuring is needed here, but that an automated merge is not the right option. Editors may want to open a centralised discussion on a new structure for energy categories in the United States, and should not feel obliged to delay returning to CFD if any alternative proposals need CFD attention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the items in this category are already in the “energy infrastructure” category or one of its subcategories, mostly as subcategories. Some oil platform articles are directly in this category, but they are also in Category:Oil platforms off the United States. The main function of this category seems to be as a parent category for the 51 “energy resource facilities by state” subcategories, and these could eventually be renamed to “energy infrastructure by state”, as that is what they contain. This would avoid having two separate and parallel category trees. Hugo999 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Unnecessary duplication. Beagel (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the subcategories in Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States by state seem to relate to either infrastructure eg power stations, with some general articles which would have to go into a subcategory on energy in that state. The contents of Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States are intertwined with infrastructure categories at all levels eg power stations in electric power infrastructure, oil fields in oil infrastructure, and natural gas pipelines in transportation infrastructure (although in Europe they are in energy infrastructure). And why is an “energy resource facilities” category not neded outside the US? Hugo999 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they are intertwined, but not in a parent-child relationship. Look downward from Category:Energy resource facilities in the United States; then look downward from Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States. There are not common subcats until several levels down and they are certainly not all common. Some commonality is not uncommon, but it is not enough to merge the structures. There is not a fit; it is a misfit. I mostly work on US items and I created both these categories. I expect that other editors will create such categoriees for other countries when they see the need to do so. Most countries do not have anywhere near the number of articles that the US has. Hmains (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After looking at the subcategories, I don't see a general need for both categories at this time. While there may be some energy articles on a state by state basis, I'm far from convinced that at this time, we need Category:Energy in the United States by state. For those states, if any, that may justify the creation of Category:Energy in the United States by state these should be allowed to be recreated. But at this point, I'm not convinced of the need for any of these. While the merge may place some articles in an inappropriate category, that is not as bad as leaving both categories given the lack of articles at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category for merger has not been tagged. This needs to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This has two facets: 1.) The overlap here is such that it looks like the two trees need re-working to enhance navigation, and honestly, clarity; but 2.) this needs editorial work, and shouldn't be an automated "merge". For the manual merge, I would suggest merging towards the "by state" format, since that is (potentially) part of a much larger framework, per current common practice. - jc37 05:41, 30 October 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 all. - jc37 04:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Forcing the marriage between universities and colleges (see:College) was a bad idea to start with. These two should be distinct categories because, for example, universities always have academic faculties, and colleges do not , at least not consistently. This forced marriage at Wikipedia has produced many inconsistent sub-categories that will take a lot of work to unravel. Then there is also Category:Academic institutions... Ottawahitech (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance. Whether or not an institution has academic faculties makes absolutely no difference to these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you think it makes no difference. Also, what about these categories:
Comment in the case of the United States the rename is surely needed. If you look at the contents of the category you will find lists of people from Albion College and Columbia College Chicago, and probably a lot more, those were just the two that caught my eye quickly. In the United States there is no real difference between colleges and universities. So much so that Rocky Mountain College and Rhodes College both if anything are more academically advanced now than when they called themselves or a partial parent institution university. Boston College and Boston University both grant doctoral degrees, and Darmouth College has subdivisions that use the name college. In American speak people talk of "going to college", and this can include attending anywhere from Macomb Community College to Harvard University. While most people assume places that have university in their name grant graduate degrees and places that are just college only grant four year degrees, in Virginia I can find College of William and Mary which has lots of graduate programs and Southern Virginia University which only grants bachelors degrees. Some places in the US that have "univeristy" in their name grant lots of associates degrees, and at least in Michigan community colleges are allowed to grant bachelors degrees in nursing, so the whole matter is a mess. There is no realisitc way to differentiate the two which is why there are Category:Alumni by university or college in Massachusetts and its 50 or so sister cats. We also assume that universities or colleges covers all tertiary level institutions, including places like Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the New England Conservatory or Juilliard School, that do not use either of those words in their name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and above comment. There is no reason to seperate college and university lists. These should probably be limited to tertiary institutions, but lots of those no one would call a university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 18 October 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.
