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: The "by sport" suffix does not add to the definition as there is currently no parent by the "Sports champions" name SFB 20:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indicates the type of categorization. It isn't sports champions by country or Sports champions by ethnicity or Sports champions by gender -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't really have any articles on champions by nation. By keeping the "by sport" category, the new Category:Sports champions one will just contain the "by sport" category and the "navigational boxes" one. In conclusion, why dissect a category "by sport" when the entire contents of the parent category are all by sport anyway? Dissection should only occur when it serves a purpose within the parent. SFB 16:43, 8 June 2014 (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: To match the main article at racing - this is not an ambiguous term. All forms of racing are a kind of sport, so the current title is tautological. The category also contains broader content that are not specifically types of racing sports (e.g. venues, games based on racing, racing vehicles). SFB 20:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Rename for consistency with main article. NickSt (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2014 (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:Delete. Unnecessary category. I tried to populate it, but there aren't enough articles to meet the threshold, because most articles that would fit already have a stub tag that is more specific. Category should be deleted, and the contents (20 articles) upmerged to Category:American film stubs, which itself only has 40 articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge until more articles can be found for this category (generally 60, although we may be willing to reduce it to 50 if the parent category becomes too big - which it currently wouldn't be). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 18:56, 5 June 2014 (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:Delete. Only one album and only one article for band member, this eponymous category offers no additional aid in navigation amongst the 3 total articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:36, 3 June 2014 (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:no consensus on what to do here. However, given the nature of the issue involved, and the fact that those who are familiar with this scientific area regard the name as one that is not used, it might be worthwhile to bring the previous discussion to WP:DRV for a review of the consensus that led to the renaming. That would be my suggestion of where to go from here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The term "granular materials" is universally accepted by scientific community, instead the term "Granularity of materials" was invented in this discussion that changed the correct name due to same personal and illogic considerations. Furthermore the term "granularity" in a scientific context can be confused with "roughness", which is not correlated with the meaning of this category. See also these results in Google books: 148000 for "granular materials" vs only 22 for "Granularity of materials" !!! Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the very recent cfd discussion of 17 April makes it clear that this is intended to be a topic category containing articles about granularity, not a list category of granular materials. (There was not all that much support for the existence of a list category of granular materials.) Oculi (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Granularity?" What is it granularity? Who invented this term? Who used this term? I am sorry to say this, but I think too many unqualified people participated to the last cfd discussion (let's tell me if it is not the case, which scientific knowledge do you have... I am really curious!). For this reason I ask the participation to this discussion of some competent wikiproject, so hopefully some other expert in materials science will confirm that the previous discussion was completely illogical. Sorry about the tone of my answer, but your last renaming is an offence to the material science made by people that very likely never studied it or any other similar subject! If do not know what is it a "granular material" (it is clearly the case), I can rewrite the page for you and adding reliable references, but please, put back the old, correct category name! --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The introduction was not modified after the rename following the April 17 discussion. I just fixed that oversight. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The previous (and proposed) category included materials that are granular. That is very different from the intent of the current name, which is to group articles about the properties of granularity itself, not the materials involved. - Gorthian (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You did not explain WHY in your opinion we have to adopt the name "granularity of materials", that is a term invented by some wikipedians, instead of adopt the name "Granular materials", that is a term adopt in the field of Material science. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Granularity is not a term "invented by some wikipedians," it is a real property that is important to many fields, including materials science. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] for examples. - Gorthian (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note This list seems to contain mostly granular materials still. If the intent is to be a category about describing granular materials then it should be that . It seems to be a list serving two purposes under one heading currently. That title is not correct for one of the two purposes. Maybe it should be broken into two categories instead of one.XFEM Skier (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two categories? Which categories? Please be more detailed in your answer. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus that the category should be granularity of materials and that should include articles describing granularity in materials as opposed to granular materials then that should be a category and what is contains. But the current category is about half populated by granular materials. (Aggregate (composite), Cobble (geology), Construction aggregate, ...). These should not be categorized as granular materials not granularity of materials. So the idea was that there should be a granularity of materials about things like fineness modulus and another category with granular materials with things like aggregate. Although I personally think the definition should be broadened to both and the title should be changed to granular materials. XFEM Skier (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction was only fixed two days ago, so some cleanup of the contents may be required. That lack of cleanup should not be construed as demonstrating the need to the existing category to be split. It is simply an indication that the cleanup from the rename is not completed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before to move the pages to and from the category we need to discuss more about this category name. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per all of the above notes and rebuttals. I have never heard the word "granularity" to describe a property of a material in any scientific context -- only in describing sound, vision, texture, and in woodworking and cooking. All but one article in the current category is written in both context and content of the physics of granular materials. The category name "Granularity of materials" may possibly be suitable for an article on, say, a statistic based on the size, homogeneity, and viscosity of particles in a granular material; it makes no sense for a category. This subcategory, should it continue to exist as-is, cannot be described as "Granularity of materials" and the best suggestion for renaming is "Granular materials". SamuelRiv (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least one user that uses the word "scientific", that knows its meaning and most important that explains his reasons clearly and with good sense. Thanks! --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term granularity is common in many fields, including science. It is not only common, it is measureable. In my comment above, I cited six examples of its use from Google Books. - Gorthian (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the "granularity" you are talking about is a synonym of "to be a granular material"? Maybe is just one property of granular material used in some very specific field, because it is the first time that I heard about this property. I think that you are following some bizarre guideline ignoring the common sense. We have a lot of categories about materials, I really don't understand why you want to change the name of this particular typology of materials. Furthermore, the name "Granular materials" is used in Commons and in all the other Wikipedias! So everyone are in wrong except en.wikipedia? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2014 (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:no consensus to merge, but it seems that consensus was reached on what should go in both categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there could conceivably be geography-related lists that do not list places, in practice that's all that "California geography-related lists" contains. Ibadibam (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as category creator) The current name fits the convention of Category:States of the United States geography-related lists, and allows for inclusion of lists relating to topics such as demographics and climate, which are not lists "of places". Part of the problem here is that the Category:Lists of places in California is being misused; it should be simply a container for List of places in California (A), but instead it is being stuffed with other items. The broad concept of "geography" makes a better container than "place", because what is a "place"? Is California a place, or the United States? Better to either use the broader term "geography" or a more specific one such as "cities". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to place (geography), a place is "a point or an area on the Earth's surface or elsewhere", with the added clarification that a place is defined by human and/or social attributes, while a location is based on more definite features, like geometry. Thank you for bringing the other categories to attention. Let's close this discussion and I'll start a new one for the entire group.Ibadibam (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I take it back, looking over some of the other lists, there are clearly some non-place lists in the "geography-related" categories, so there's obviously merit in keeping them separate. I suggest we make "Lists of places" categories children of the "geography-related" categories, and put place-lists in the child categories only. Ibadibam (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2014 (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.
