Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20[edit]

Category:Universities in France by city or town[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 "Universities and colleges". Although this may tend to be misleading for schools that are named Collège, "academic institutions" is no better as it includes schools anyway. – Fayenatic London 22:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Further 38 child categories to be renamed
Nominator's rationale: Most French cities only host a single public university or some institutes of a regional university. With some universities being forced to merge with neighboring universities, the number has further decreased. At the same time there is only a good dozen of private universitites in the whole country. Academic institutions in a broader sense include the Grands établissements, the Grandes écoles, private academies and other specialized academic institutions.
The Category:Universities in France by city or town included some twenty more subcategories for minor towns I considered very unlikely to have at least 5 academic institutions at all, some of them having less than 5.000 inhabitants. Often they didn't have a main category at all, so I already expanded scope for these ones to the Category:Education in France by town or city scheme. The last one of these is a candidate further below. The only category of this botched scheme I'm leaving out for now is Category:Universities in Paris which might be considered adequate in scope. For the rest of the country, Category:Universities in France by region is much more adequate.
Finally, I'm proposing the Category:Academic institutions scheme rather than the Category:Universities and colleges scheme for at least two reasons: it is more adequate for single departments of regional universities and for specialized institutes. Secondly, "colleges" is slightly misleading in the French context, as Collège is the French name for a type of secondary education institution, comparable to the North American middle school. --PanchoS (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Universities and colleges format. That is the accepted English terminology. This is an English-language encyclopedia, so we use English. The French words do not matter in category names. The Academic institution tree includes things that are learned societies, and not educational institutions at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Academic institutions is a fully accepted category existing since 2004. It includes educational institutions in the narrower sense, i.e. excluding museums or libraries. It however includes research institutes, business schools, arts schools or military academies, which is exactly what is desired to correctly describe these categories' content and to slightly expand them in scope so they are no WP:SMALLCATs anymore. I'm okay with subdividing one or the other on a case-by-case basis, but – if purged from non-universities and non-colleges – the majority of "Universities and colleges by city of France" categories will contain no more than one or two articles with limited possibilities to expand.
    Secondly: yes, this is the English wikipedia, where we generally prefer English terminology (and I didn't propose anything different), but from all the levels of categorization, we don't have to pick exactly the one that happens to be both a false friend and inappropriate in scope. --PanchoS (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think tanks and learned societies are both in the academic institution category and are both not at all what we want to include. Your attempt to use French word usage to control what we use here is an attempt to use French to influence our word usage. Research institutes is a loose term with varried definitions, but is not what we want here. What we want is tertiary academic institutions, and the consensus term for such is universities and colleges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Your attempt to use French word usage to control what we use here is an attempt to use French to influence our word usage." Swiftly been asking myself whether to laugh (because it's so ridiculous) or to cry (because it's so unnecessarily aggressive), but decided to shake my head and go on to do more relevant things than discussing this here with you. --PanchoS (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of the discussion so far: there is consensus to rename, but no consensus about the target. As for the target, I'm having a preference for the scheme of Category:Universities and colleges as it is the international standard. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2016 (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:Video game characters who use magic[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2016 (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 New Wave musicians[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 all. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "New wave" is never capitalized, see WP:GENRECAP and Talk:New wave music#Requested move. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New wave musicians/musical groups
  • Speedy All Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per both rationales. 8bitW (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2016 (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:Universities in Melun[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Melun has less than 40.000 inhabitants and is not likely to have 5 higher education institutions even if expanded to include colleges. PanchoS (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support With no objection to recreating if they prove us wrong and get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, until proven wrong… :) --PanchoS (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2016 (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:Units and formations of the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe[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 and I will add a header to clarify that it concerns 1955+. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: The English name of the German air force is German Air Force, this should be reflected in the category name. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do Not Rename This proposal would destroy the clear distinction, subcategorisation, that I created the category for. This category deals *only* with roughly 1955 onwards, units of the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe, not previously. Any category name needs to recognize that subdividing the time period. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Question @Buckshot06: Clearly, 1945 would be a meaningful cutoff. We don't have an article Bundeswehr Luftwaffe so can you help us understand the significance of the 1955 cutoff? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bundeswehr was the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) created from 1955 or so. They were new, and after multiple discussions, the article dealing with the air arm of that force is at German Air Force. There was no air force in West Germany between 1945/46 and 1955. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a lay reader here, it's pretty baffling to have a category using German words without a corresponding article to fill me in on the term. You may want to propose an RM on the article talk page and see if the consensus has shifted. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect has been created. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that is an improvement. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as proposed per Buckshot, this category is not for the German Air Force in all its incarnations; if renamed, it will need to have a date range attached -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. Since the article is at German Air Force, the category should follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per RevD, but will probably need a year range per 70. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as mentioned this refers only to the "German Air Force" within a specific time frame; this is a case of WP:NATURALDIS. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename, not usually known as "Bundeswehr Luftwaffe". —Kusma (t·c) 15:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, if a change needs to be made I suggest following the de:wiki naming scheme which uses Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr) and Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) to distinguish. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support to match parent article German Air Force hardly confusing the post 1955 air force is at the English common names German Air Force and the pre-1945 is at Luftwaffe so the related categories should match. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- This is English WP and should use the normal English names for things. The official German name can appear in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2016 (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:Wings of the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe[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 and I will add in the header that it concerns 1955+. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: The English name of the German air force is German Air Force, this should be reflected in the category name. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – the articles Luftwaffe and German Air Force both exist (for different eras), so I would expect category names to follow the relevant article. Oculi (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Rename - this would remove the distinction between wings of the German Air Force (Wehrmacht Luftwaffe) 1933-45, and the specific reason I set the category up, to subcategorise wings of the West German Air Force from 1955 onwards (Bundeswehr Luftwaffe). There's clearly a long-running debate over how to best describe the various air forces, and whether to follow en or German naming conventions. But deleting the subcategories and throwing all the wings of the air force from 1955 onwards in with the wings of World War II is clearly against better categorisation, and thus against the purpose of this encyclopedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Rename per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. Since the article is at German Air Force, the category should follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as proposed per Buckshot in the units and formations nomination above this nomination; this category is not for the German Air Force in all its incarnations; if renamed, it will need to have a date range attached -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per RevD, but a year range is probably required for the reason detailed by 70. above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as mentioned this refers only to the "German Air Force" within a specific time frame; this is a case of WP:NATURALDIS. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support to match parent article German Air Force, we already have a matching pair for the earlier Luftwaffe/Category:Luftwaffe Wings MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename, not usually known as "Bundeswehr Luftwaffe". If you are concerned about confusion, disambiguate with dates. —Kusma (t·c) 15:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, if a change needs to be made I suggest following the de:wiki naming scheme which uses Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr) and Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) to distinguish. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- This is the English WP, but it should closed to match the CFD above this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2016 (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:New Age music[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. MER-C 12:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: See WP:GENRECAP and Talk:New-age music. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    New-age category
  • Speedy All Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2016 (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:Mortal Kombat clones[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 (also considering this earlier discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are not "clones". "Mortal Kombat clones" does not accurately describe what the articles in this category are. The games are category:Fighting games, and that's the category they should be in, not this one. Anarchyte 09:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per reliable sources such as WP:VG/RS calling a sufficient number of the tagged games as clones to warrant a category -- e.g., Tatoo Assasins, BloodStorm, Killer Instinct, Misc, Misc, etc. (These aren't but should be sourced in the articles though.) 12:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Reliable sources giving reviews/opinions is not an objective inclusion criteria. It's like grouping restaurants by lousy service, as per the restaurant reviews in the New York Times. The source is reliable, the opinion in it is not encyclopedic. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "fighting games" is a poor name, see Talk:Fighting game for a discussion on that. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename per nom. The opinions of one source, no matter how reliable, are not worth categorizing on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose since the sources support the use of the term "clones". Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2016 (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:Tetris clones[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 both parents. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. It currently has 2 members and both of them say they were "inspired by Tetris", not that they were "clones" of Tetris. Anarchyte 09:47, 20 January 2016 (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:Pac-Man clones[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: Similar to the category "Category:Minecraft clones", the title does not accurately describe the games inside this category. It's biased. Anarchyte 09:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per basically content of List of Pac-Man clones and sources such as [1]. Reliable sources have been calling a sufficient number of games in question "Pac-Man clones", so a category seems fine. It is not biased as long as we source it reliably, though I can't speak for all current games listed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This One A lot of the Pac Man issues were actually with unauthorized clones per the articles. Not some review/critic saying they thought they were clones, but legal clones. This one is different than the other categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2016 (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:Actua Sports video games[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT There's only 2 articles in this category at this time. There are other games in the Actua Sports series but they're all redirects. Anarchyte 09:39, 20 January 2016 (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:Activision Blizzard games[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: Activision Blizzard games only has subcategories. There's no need for this category when there's already Activision Blizzard. Anarchyte 09:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom, not need for over-categorization here, though I'm not closely familiar how we handle such cases. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2016 (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:Terrorist incidents in Burkina Faso in 2016[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:2016 in Burkina Faso and Category:Terrorist incidents in Burkina Faso. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: One article [nonsense] category that can fit in elsewhere (and it does). Neither are such incidents a regular feature in the country that warrants a category by year. (as in, say, Syria or Libya)Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, yes that article accomplisheds the needful. This country hasn't had such an incident in eons. Every new attack in a new country doesn't need a dedicated category if there is only ONE incident. "established structure" is not blind obedience.Lihaas (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dual Upmerge For Now It's certainly understandable that the 2016 tree, Category:Terrorist incidents in 2016 is anemic since it's only January. But, if you look at Category:Terrorist incidents in 2015, we're not subcategorizing every terrorist incident by year and country when that creates small categories that don't aid navigation. No objection to recreating it later if we get up to 3 articles are so. (Hopefully that won't be necessary.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my point. better said too.Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They also have only one article ... I, personally, I should keep them all ... The year is only 20 days old ... Stefanomione (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • The question is whether we may reasonably expect this category to grow substantially, for Burkano Faso this is far less the case than the other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upmerge to general 2016 category. For this type of category we need multiple articles to justify its existence. It is not of the type that all incidents need to be categorized by a country + year category. Also put in Category:2016 in Burkina Faso.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upmerge to a global 2016 category and an undated Burkino Faso category: that is plenty. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This is the only time (I've heard of at least) Burkina Faso had a terrorist incident and it seems a little foreshadowing because we don't know if there will be any more terrorist attacks in Burkina Faso in 2016 (LOL I almost make it seem like the category is a threat). Jackninja5 (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would support upmerging the Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Indonesia, India, Turkey and France categories until they get more articles also.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Iraq, Turkey and India all have multiple articles in the relevant pages to this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The one article in this category is the only article that currently exists in Wikipedia on a terrorist article in Burkina Faso. It generally makes no sense to split in any way a one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Egypt category for 2016 now also has two entries, although one is in a sub-category, which does not really seem needed. I have to wonder if terrorism incidents is the right name. The Columbine mass killings have not to my knowledge been described as a terrorism incident, but I see no good reason to have a category structure that sepearetes different mass killings for no clear or standard reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2016 (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:United Kingdom Home Office designated terrorist groups[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: Category tree is Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator AusLondonder (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Eight don't and three do. Also, it's not actually the Home Office doing the designating. "Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do" AusLondonder (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Either is an improvement. Hollth (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support original nomination, simple is good. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 1 February 2016 (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.

    Territoire de Belfort[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. – Fayenatic London 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose renaming:
    Nominator's rationale: Territoire doesn't only sound like "territory", it also means "territory". Omitting the definite article is like speaking of District of Columbia instead of the District of Columbia. Wherever we're speaking of the Territoire de Belfort, we're already using the article, see for example Territoire de Belfort, so this change would bring the categories in line with both common usage and our common usage. --PanchoS (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is the English WP it should simply be Belfort Territory (or lowercase T) in all instancs.Lihaas (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lihaas: May be true, but needs a consensus in main article namespace first. Propose you file a move request for the main article Territoire de Belfort, and we would keep the CfR request on hold until we have a consensus there. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, in this case "Territoire" is part of the name of the department, so it's not a regular noun, therefore neither an article rename nor the proposed category rename seem to be appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case, the sources you mention support the fact that "Territoire" is part of the name, not being translated. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I didn't propose translating "Territoire", I'm fine with either, as I said. But let's stick to my original proposal, before we get stuck on further aspects. --PanchoS (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies I forgot to focus on the fact that the nomination is about inserting "the" rather than about "Territoire". It sounds very weird to me to insert "the" in this case, but as you have sources at hand I can only withdraw my opposition. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (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:University research collaboratives[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. MER-C 13:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: This obscure category seems to be populated more or less exclusively through a number of navboxes created by 80.13.85.217, an IP that was very active between April and July 2012 and disappeared then after a rather short sockpuppetry block.
    We don't have the term "University research collaboratives" defined anywhere and while being mentioned in a number of scholarly publications, most Google hits it renders are either referring to or rehashing WIkipedia. My personal suspection is that the categorization solely serves giving all kinds of private, commercial education institutes a touch of "doing research and collaborating with universities."
    I'm however proposing to delete the category on the basis that it is neither defined nor are there inclusion criteria nor is inclusion sourced. It clutters hundreds of universities and schools that in many cases aren't meaningfully related, in a single category that is absolutely worthless to organize content or guide readers. I'm not against having it recreated at a later point on the basis of a clear rationale. --PanchoS (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. A bizarre collection of articles (e.g. List of national parks of France). Articles should not be categorized using templates like this. DexDor (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- It may be useful to have a list article concerning collaborations, but this is far too wide-ranging to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2016 (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:After the Burial[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. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for a single, more appropriate category by topic (in this case albums). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:06, 20 January 2016 (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/2016_January_20&oldid=1140155380"