Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7[edit]

Category:Burials by pantheon[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. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has only one child, which is more easily accomodated in the parent as "pantheon" is such an unusual place type that this category will not be populated in future. I would also argue that the sole containing article (Komitas Pantheon) looks more like a cemetery than a pantheon to me (pantheons are buildings), but I'll leave that for now. SFB 20:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I forgot to populate this category. Being buried in a pantheon is rather notable. I'll work on populating it. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unless populated - We already have Category:Burials by cemetery and such. If this can be populated, it wouldn't be an unreasonable category. But if not, it ought to be upmerged as the nominator proposes. --NYKevin 03:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Category:Burials by cemetery since the sole article I can see is an article about a cemetery. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Mangoe's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom & Mangoe. Call yourself a pantheon? Are all the gods worshiped there or is it limited to the Abrahamic one only? Inquiring minds want to know.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mangoe. It looks as if it is a remarkable cemetery, but a cemetery nevertheless. We cannot allow separate categories according to the vagaries of the names applied to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is now well-populated with 7 decently-used subcats, and could easily be expanded. Even if Komitas Pantheon should be categorised as a cemetery, those in Rome, Paris and Venezuela look like proper pantheons to me. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this appears to be a shared-name spurious category. The Pantheon was a temple, and some of the "pantheons" are churches which are now only used a mausoleums, and some are pars of buildings, and some were built as such. This is something that would need a main article for its justification, and when I looked at this originally, I couldn't find material on which to base such an article. Is Westminster Abbey a pantheon? Does it contain one? How about Washington National Cathedral? I think the answer to all the latter is "no", but I think the answer we can give at this point is "because the don't use the word 'pantheon'," which is the purest sign of a shared name problem. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2015 (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.

Ancient establishment in Italy[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:1st-century BC establishments in the Roman Republic, Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Italy, Category:1st century BC in Italy and Category:43 BC establishments (which is perhaps the other one intended in the last list below). – Fayenatic London 16:59, 12 June 2015 (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:British female MPs[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: no consensus. --slakr\ talk / 03:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the sub-categories for the UK's 4 constituent countries, which all use the format "Female members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for xxxx constituencies‎" (where xxxx = English/Scottish/etc).
This also avoids the non-neutral use of the term "British", which is rejected by Irish nationalist MPs such as Bernadette Devlin McAliskey and Michelle Gildernew. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Women members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Women is generally the preferred term for adult females. See categories like Category:Women judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment surely "Members" should be capitalised, as that is the formal title? SFB 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Female Members of the UK Parliament. These categories are too long. "Women Members" is not a good term as women is not a descriptor. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom as nominated to Category:Female members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I don't understand the immediate efforts to change the overall naming format via word changes, capitalization changes, and abbreviations—as stated by the nominator, this format will bring it into line with its four subcategories: Category:Female members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies, etc. After the five categories are brought into conformity, then if users wish, a nomination could be used to propose adding abbreviations or changing words or capitalizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original nom. Too long, too clumsy, too easily overlooked by readers. British to UK certainly needs change though. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (as nominated), and consider opening a separate CfD after this one has closed about the entire set of categories. We're trying to have two discussions at once here, and it isn't working. --NYKevin 13:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree on that. SFB 18:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining - trivial - unless someone can prove that women MPs do parliamentary things differently than their male colleagues. One expects that a female Tory MP would be more like a male Tory MP than like a female Sinn Fein MP, but I'm on the wrong side of the Pond to know for sure - I guess they're more alike than different in WP's analysis. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:UK women MPs -- With a hisotry of women not even being allowed to vote, let alone sit as MPs, being a woman MP is significant. Also, nearly a century after female suffrage, they remain a minority in Parliament. The nom is wrong to ask for the the expansion of the category name. There are lots of MP categories, at least one for each Parliament, e.g. Category:UK MPs 1906–10. As a matter of policy, these category names have been kept short, becasue a long-serving MP may have half a dozen of them. By analogy, the category should be what, I am suggesting, and the subcats for the four home nations should be renamed to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @Peterkingiron:. This is basically a {{container category}}, so the length of its name is not an issue. I have diffused all but one of the biographical articles to the sub-categories.
      You make a good case for shortening the names of the sub-cats, but that would require a separate nomination. For now, pls can we just synchronise the names? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank for diffusing them. However, I think that the four subcats should be renamed. As you say that would requiere a separate nom. I am afraid that I do not have much time to devote to WP and am doing little more than monitoring events at presnet. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. First synchronize the names, then in a later separate discussion we can discuss the right name for the whole set. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (as nominated), and consider opening a separate CfD after this one has closed about the entire set of categories. I agree that having to have two discussions at once causes confusion. Neutralitytalk 22:17, 25 April 2015 (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:Homework Coaching[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: administrative close: deleted as G5. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can't decide if it is an article or a category (with one member). Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A category should ideally have more than one member. Otherwise, what's the point? I mean, I suppose it's useful for people starting from Category:Fundamental categories, but this category is not reachable from there. If it was, upmerging would be more appropriate. --NYKevin 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the one article in this orphased category is adequately parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (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:ADHD coaching[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: administrative close: deleted as G5. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can't decide if it is an article or a category (with one member). Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace or delete outright - I'm not sure if this is substantial enough to be a stub, but it's pretty close. It's not quite the same as homework coach (its only member), but it's pretty similar. --NYKevin 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- The overlong headnote might be merged with homework coach, though I am not convinced of its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2015 (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:Villages in Nepal[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: Category redirected. (NAC). --'''Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:Villages in Nepal to Category:Populated places in Nepal

Nominator's rationale: Category was redirected from 2010 to 18 Jan 2014 when in an undiscussed edit it was reinstated as a category. It currently has 10 members. There are a vast number of villages within the "Populated places in xxx District" categories of Nepal, so this little-used category is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn by nominator: I boldly depopulated the category (of its 10 entries) and reverted to the redirect which was in place from 2010 to 2014. All the entries, and hundreds of other Nepal villages, are in the "Populated places in xxx District" group of categories. PamD 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PamD: This is an inappropriate way of being bold. If you want to have a category deleted (which you apparently do) you should wait for a close of the discussion. If the outcome is to delete the category, a bot will do the depopulation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: With hindsight I can see that I should just have recategorised the 10 villages in this category and left the empty category to wither away (or quietly reverted it to its redirect status as at 2010-2014). PamD 21:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PamD: On the contrary! What you suggest is what's called an 'out-of-process' deletion - which makes it more likely and more acceptable that the deleted category will be reinstated by anyone else. The correct way is to nominate a category here and to wait for the outcome of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2015 (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:Teachers who married their students[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: Speedily deleted (G7) by RHaworth (talk · contribs) [1]. (NAC). --NYKevin 01:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Probably qualifies for WP:C1, but regardless, this is clearly not a defining characteristic of any hypothetical subject. I found quite a few more of these under a database report; someone might want to go through and tag the rest of them. NYKevin 04:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started the category because all of a sudden I seemed to be running in to a lot of these. Shortly after I started it someone suggested that it was not a good idea, so instead I started a List of teachers who married their students and was happy to defer to that editor's judgement and let the category go. I feel no need to have this category retained. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Carptrash: If you want the category deleted, you can tag it with {{db-author}} and an admin will delete it on your behalf. --NYKevin 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I doubt this is a useful category. A list might be worth having, but it is hardly a defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just post that tag on the category, let's see what happens. Carptrash (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2015 (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/2015_April_7&oldid=1079648430"