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.
rename per nom Clarifying the naming is what is in order and and regardless of how they are named, these are rowing clubs and not general boating clubs. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Rename the Oxford category to match this one. All the Cambridge clubs and most of the Oxford ones are called "boat clubs". WP should follow local convention. This does not mean that the rowing clubs of other universities or the partner category should be renamed. I suspect that this usage is common in England: my school had a "boat club", though which competitive and leisure sport rowing was organised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, you are correct. Many rowing clubs in the UK use 'boat club' in their title (eg Category:University and college rowing clubs in the United Kingdom), it's the style of those clubs, yet we categorise them as rowing clubs. Clearly the sport carried out is rowing and not boating. To me 'boat club' is too ambiguous to the general reader who might know little about this tradition. Whizz40 also makes the point that the CUBC/ CUWBC are also excluded under the current category tree.Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:58, 4 April 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:Current far-right political parties in Australia[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have cat:Far-right political parties in Australia, and no other similar category uses "current". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to seperate out current political parties in categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 28 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.
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: rename for consistency. (With respect to the Near East category it's a bit doubtful whether the term classical antiquity applies at all; the Near East's own "classical antiquity" is maybe rather the period of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Achaemenid Empires. Alternative: Category:Greco-Roman Near East and purge the three Persian categories.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Support This brings the categories into consistency and matches Classical antiquity so this is an improvement to navigation. That being said, I don't think "Classical antiquity" is as commonly understood to be Greco-Roman anymore as other cultural histories have gained broader academic attention. I'm not going to insert an RM proposal into a category nomination though. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are more editors with this specific doubt I wouldn't mind turning the whole nomination into "Greco-Roman". The only point here is consistency, nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is probably a misunderstanding. Category:Greco-Roman antiquity in art and culture is about depictions of antiquity in modern art and culture. I wouldn't mind inserting the word "modern" in the category name if it is really too ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Yes - would prefer the insertion of "modern" please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support. At first I was going to push for this to be the other way round, since "Greco-Roman" is a term with clearer scope, but most of these categories include items which probably don't fit within "Greco-Roman", so the broader term seems more fitting Furius (talk) 18:02, 1 April 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.
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: A non-defining category which serves more to promote Word Ways than inform the reader. I am familiar with several of those listed and they are known for other things, not as contributors to this rather minor publication. Even Martin Gardner, at whose behest we are told Word Ways was started, is not known for recreational linguistics (mathematics, yes, but not linguistics). This seems like categorisation for the sake of it. Guy (Help!) 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The association with the journal is indeed a defining characteristic for many of the people in the category. Reliable sources on the subject of recreational linguistics frequently and consistently introduce Gardner, Borgmann, Eckler, and Bergerson as the founders or editors of Word Ways (to name a few, Tyrannosaurus Lex by Rod L. Evans, Word Freak by Stefan Fatsis, A Lifetime of Puzzles by Erik Demaine et al., Never Odd or Even by O. V. Michaelsen, Word Play and The Joy of Lex by Gyles Brandreth, The Universe in a Handkerchief by Gardner himself, On Crosswords by T. Campbell, Intoxerated by Paul Dickson, various OMNI articles by Scot Morris, and various Games & Puzzles articles). Morice's and Lederer's publishers bill them as Word Ways columnists/contributors in their book blurbs and author bios. Granted, some of these people (Gardner in particular) are better known for other works, but this is not in itself an argument against multiple categorization. For example, we additionally categorize Billy Bob Thornton as a musician here even though he is much more famous as an actor; WP:CATDEF still holds because music-oriented sources "commonly and consistently" identify him as a musician. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments below directing my attention to WP:PERFCAT, I agree that occasional contributors should be removed. This would leave Gardner, Borgmann, Eckler, Farrell, and Bergerson (the editors and/or founders), Morice (long-term regular columnist), Francis (long-term and most prolific contributor), and possibly Lederer (as discussed above). Happy to depopulate the category myself if the final decision is to purge. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Purge For most people in this category, they appear to be repeated contributors or staff members which is certainly defining. For a couple (1, 2) this is WP:PERFCAT but they appear to be the exceptions. Purge the following three articles should be removed from this category though: Philip M. Cohen, Louis Phillips (author) and Mark Saltveit. The first two make no reference to the publication and the third one has a citation from the journal that isn't by Mr. Saltveit. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purge -- Those I sampled were described as frequent or occasional contributors to the magazine. That is in the nature of a "performance by performer" category, which we do not allow. A person who have an article in every issue (or at least 50%) over a sustained period might be close enough to being magazine staff, in the way of a newspaper columnist. After purging them, we need to see hat is left. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 3 April 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.
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) 06:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a significant enough category to be included Music1201 (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Music1201: I just added the category to Category:Alumni by high school in Louisiana which seems pretty well established. Did you have specific concerns about this category or a broader concern about grouping biography articles by high school attendance? RevelationDirect (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We categorize people by what high school they graduated from. To say "this is not a significant enough category" will lead to arbitrary decisions that Eton College is important and Terrebonne High School is not. If you think that none of these categories are right, than go after Category:People educated at Eton College and its many British brothers. Either all these categories stand, or none. We can not arbitrary rule some high school important and some of no merit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What JPL said. An established category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We almost invariably allow such categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 3 April 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.
