Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30[edit]

Categories relating to proposed transport/rail transport in the United Kingdom[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: merge/rename. We do not keep categories for "projects", see previous CFDs for Construction projects and Development projects. Those "projects" that are completed will be moved up to Category:Transport infrastructure in London etc (i.e. without "Proposed"). As for Category:Proposed railways in the United Kingdom, this will be renamed to Category:Proposed railway lines in the United Kingdom for consistency with its siblings by country, as the related CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Upmerge proposed rail infrastructure categories does not seem to be gaining consensus. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_13#Category:Proposed_public_transport_in_Brazil which supported "rail infrastructure" categories. – Fayenatic London 09:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Changing “Proposed rail transport ...." to “Proposed rail infrastructure ...." will integrate better with the “Rail infrastructure” and “Proposed transport infrastructure” categories. And the London categories will integrate better with the “Proposed infrastructure” categories for England, and will eliminate the marginal distinction between "Transport projects in London" and "Proposed transport projects in London". Any Projects or Proposals generally involve infrastructure. Hugo999 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK - I don't mind if you want to go ahead with this.Cnbrb (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Better wording per WP:NC. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my further proposal to rename Category:Proposed railways to Category:Proposed railway lines and to rename or upmerge some of the subcategories and related categories. Hugo999 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer something more directly using "railways". However, I supect that some of the articles need to be culled as failing WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

** Comment In most countries Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in COUNTRY is a parent category only of two child categories Category:Proposed railway lines in COUNTRY and Category:Proposed railway stations in COUNTRY. So I wonder if we really need the layer of Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in COUNTRY. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose renaming of Category:Rail Infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom and Category:Transport projects in London.

Many of the projects listed are currently underway or completed, e.g. Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link, Thameslink Programme etc. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nomination. Also, as a reply to the previous comment, I've removed the category from Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link. By the way the fact that this particular railway was still in the category merely confirms that the current category name is not clear and the renaming/merging should go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removal of that article does not mean it is all clear. As I have stated above there are many projects ongoing or completed. This obviously means they are not proposed. This reasoning also applies to the proposed merger. The fact that any of them are in the categories just mean that they need to be looked at and recategorised where necessary.

Btw I copied the wrong category above and misread it. I will support renaming of rail transport projects of blah to rail infrastructure projects of blah but Strongly oppose merging or upmerging any categories above' due to the definition of proposed and support split instead. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 14:31, 1 August 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.

Category:Mongolic language 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: upmerge to Category:Language stubs and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough stub articles to justify a full stub category. Propose deleting this category and upmerging template to Category:Language stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -= a quick scan finds only 22 stubs; many of these wouldn't be tagged with this tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 2 July 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.

Category:Entomophthorales 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: upmerge to Category:Fungus stubs and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only two articles in the permanent category. Not enough to justify a separate stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:fungus stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We can always recreate the category later if we ever get enough stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:45, 2 July 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.

Category:Durham University 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: upmerge to Category:United Kingdom university stubs and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough stubs here to justify a full stub category. Proposing deleting category and upmerging template to Category:United Kingdom university stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:08, 30 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.

Category:Men's major golf championship 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: upmerge to Category:Men's major golf championship stubs and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a success for the stub project, and for golfing-related projects. The majority of articles for men's major golf tournaments are start level (or higher). Propose deleting these barely populated stub categories, and upmerging the templates to Category:Men's major golf championship stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:45, 30 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.

Category:American women film directors[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: female is a more neutral and factual term to use. JDDJS (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose While this isn't a general policy, my personal approach and that I've seen others support is to use "women" in cases where there almost entirely adults in the category, and "female" when the category is likely to be more mixed, or in cases of sports etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose insufficient reasoning is given (e.g. that "female directors" is the common term). Ideally this nomination would start with Category:Women film directors. SFB 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name actually reflects a unanimous decision at CfD last August to rename from female to women. We probably will never get a full consensus on which term to use, but with the willingness to use "young women" for 12-year-olds, I highly doubt there are any film directors who would not fit in this category. In fact, film directors are almost always without question adults. Some people seem to dislike terms like "woman film director", but that reflects actual usage. Wikipedia is meant to reflect real-world usage, not some high faluten grammarian idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 12 July 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.

Category:Marathon year rankings[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 Category:Marathon year rankings to Category:Years in marathon running; move the Marathon year rankings article to Category:Marathon running; delete Category:Shot Put Year Ranking. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge single article to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 00:45, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_30&oldid=1074813355"