Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 7

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

September 7[edit]

Category:Australian Olympic medal winning rowers[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 to Category:Olympic medalists in rowing and Category:Olympic medalists for Australia (the latter of which really means merging into the appropriate subcategory: Category:Olympic gold medalists for Australia, Category:Olympic silver medalists for Australia, or Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Australia)‎. The articles appear to already be in Category:Olympic rowers of Australia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More standard title based on parentage of "Olympic medalists in rowing" and "Olympic medalists for Australia". This also matches the style of a similar category: Category:Olympic gold medalists for the United States in track and field. SFB 19:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's response: Yes, a renaming to Category:Olympic medalists for Australia in rowing would be consistent with the parentage categories as well as other similar categories. Will it be a bot that does the auto-classification of all the articles in the current category ?-Sticks66 23:02, 7 September 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:Fred Hampton[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--all are interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EPONCAT. Only 3 articles are really about FH and my cutoff is 5. No objection to recreating if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:46, 7 September 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:Indian classical dancers[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:Performers of Indian classical dance. Category:Indian performers of Indian classical dance could be created as a subcategory, if users think this is a good idea. Note that this nomination did not deal with one of the subcategories, Category:Indian female classical dancers which presumably could be nominated to be named Category:Female performers of Indian classical dance or similar. There is also a Category:Indian classical choreographers‎. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Whilst most performers of Indian classical dance are Indian, not all performers are. Fior example Sharon Lowen who is the latest I have noticed. This renaming would be similar to Category:Performers of Irish dance Icarusgeek (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Icarusgeek (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS Am off grid now for a month so if there is a tedius activity necessary it will be a while before I can help ... Icarusgeek (talk) 12:34, 23 September 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.

United States elections in Georgia[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. Concensus makes it clear again that when we have a disambiguation on the base category, the disambiguation stays in all subcats where the ambiguous term appears even if in some cases the category name is completely unambiguous otherwise. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant and obvious. Not ambiguous: Many Georgia categories need the disambiguation, but there is no ambiguity with these categories. Redundant: as they already have "United States" once in their titles. Naming rules and conventions are not meant to be pedantic and pointless. The articles that are contained in these categories are not named with "(U.S. state)." —GoldRingChip 12:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand the nominator's points and to some extent am sympathetic with them, but I believe it has been consensus in the past to include the disambiguator on all categories in the Category:Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Georgia (country) trees that use the name "Georgia". This has been for simplicity and ease rather than pedantry: one benefit is that it allows for things to be dealt with speedily as opposed to having a discussion about every instance and whether or not it requires a disambiguation. Here's a previous discussion that I am aware of (b/c I closed it): 1. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it has indeed been consensus in the past to follow the naming convention in the main category, Category:Georgia (U.S. state) in this case, throughout the subcats, rather than debating the ambiguity or otherwise of every individual subcat. Oculi (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose inconsistent with US Georgia categories. Further, U.S. elections have foreign overseas components, so they do literally affect the non-US Georgia as well. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows Americans who are in the Caucasus Georgia to vote in elections in the United States; so "elections" in Georgia can be used to cover articles about the effects of US elections in the country of Georgia. (like balloting troubles) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are no US elections in the country of Georgia, so the name is unambiguous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 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.

ISIL members by nationality[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 Iraq category, upmerge others to Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members. Consequently, upmerge Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members by nationality too. – Fayenatic London 17:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I can't quite figure out here why "of" is being used instead of "from". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a need to split these out by country? There seems so few entries for most of them, I'd support and upmerge to the parent. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know, but if there is consensus for that, I would have no objection. There are 12 articles in the Iraq category, which is the largest of the bunch. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query – why not the usual 'Syrian' rather than 'of Syria' or 'from Syria'? (Eg 'Syrian members of ...') Oculi (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, good point. The "North Caucasus" one might not be able to handle that format ("North Caucasian"?), but for all the others, I see no reason why the FOOian could not be used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break the North Caucasus one into two, one cat for the 2 from Russia, and 1 cat for the guy from Georgia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. They are "from" somewhere, not "of" somewhere. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Lugnuts. —烏Γ (kaw), 10:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the Iraqi category as nominated, upmerge the others. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 19 September 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_September_7&oldid=1138409431"