Category:Northwestern University School of Law faculty[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.
Nominator's rationale: As the law school's name has changed, so should this category. We've already moved the main article. agtx 22:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do we really need a separate category for School of Law faculty? None of the other constituent schools of this University has its own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably a good idea. The law school is on a separate physical campus and is a notable institution in and of itself. agtx 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me started on the name change, but it is what it is. agtx 14:34, 14 December 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:Gidget films and television productions[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. – FayenaticLondon 16:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category name doesn't need to be that specific; also, many of the articles are about elements of the various Gidget productions, not the productions themselves. Trivialist (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the category contains a mishmash of articles about the book, the films and the TV series, which would require a split in three categories, but each of the three will then have only a few articles (so that by splitting it will become a WP:SMALLCAT issue), while at the same time all these articles are already referred to in the main Gidget article anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I think there's enough articles about Gidget content to maintain a category for it, and as noted by nom, this would be a more natural name for it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:28, 16 December 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: These organizations aren't related to globalization as such, they merely have global scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge intoCategory:International organizations per nom; unclear scope. I oppose a new "global organizations" category because tha would be equally redundant and unclear. Neutralitytalk 19:18, 12 November 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:delete. As noted, it might be easier here to just start from scratch, so this is without prejudice to a creation of an category for peak oil theorists or similar. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete. Peak oil is a term in Peak oil theory, it is the point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, so that is about science and economics and it's unclear how people can associate with this. At most we might have something like Category:Advocates of peak oil theory but then only few people will remain in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Some of the included people question and do not advocate the peak oil theory. Since it is a theory, there can be supporters and questioners. 'Associated' is the correct term here. Hmains (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most people in this category have written about the future scarcity of oil but not specifically about the peak oil theory. The best descriptor I can think of, that would leave most people in this category, would be "Theorists on oil scarcity". Is that worth categorizing? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- perhaps Category:Peak oil theory people, but purge. Some of the articles do not seem to mention the subject at all; for others it has been a major plank of their career. We probably need such a category, but it needs to be much more tightly defined, a section on their interaction with the theory should be a minimum for an article to qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair compromise, still most people currently in this category will need to be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to categorize people who have some opinion on an issue or theory, with such issue or theory, is a bad idea. Imagine if every controversy had such categories; the bio's of noted politicians and pundits, who opine on anything to fill up coffers or the column-inch, would be so crowded with these categories to make them meaningless and hard to actually organize articles. Surely, if these folks are so inherently-tied to this theory, make a template, link them, and we're done. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be some viable category here for "Peak oil theorists" or the like but I think it makes more sense to start that from scratch. The current category isn't even grouping people on a single issue, since they seem to have different viewpoints on oil. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 26 November 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: Unnecessary category layer with just a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- There is an equivalent animals category, which is adequately populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Plants_in_culture#In_literature_and_film only provides examples of fictional plants, while the popular culture tree assumes real plants. I guess animals are far more popular than plants. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must admit a dislike for these popular culture categories, as presumably popular consumption of the plant is part of our culture. While banana stands alone here, obviously a few others could, with the same subjectivity and lack of rigor, be added: chocolate, tobacco, cannabis, tea, and coffee, all seem to have lots of notable "popular culture" effects. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 16 December 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:rename as proposed. (I've changed the first one to Category:Alberta provincial highways, 1–216 series to match Wikipedia style, since, as noted, this appears to be an issue of orthography rather than a difference in naming that carries any significance.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Highways in Alberta are no longer referred to as "primary highways". They are now "provincial highways". See Template talk:Alberta Provincial Highways#Yet another highway rebranding describing what has transpired (took over five years to get around to this after first being observed in early 2011). List of Alberta provincial highways#History describes the history of how Alberta's two highway series have been rebranded over time. Also, for the first entry, the " - " (space-dash-space) is intentional to align with List of Alberta provincial highways, which takes its lead from Alberta Transportation's primary and definitive sources, [1] and [2], for the two highway series. The NEW proposed renaming is another category found related to this topic that simply has capitalization errors. Hwy43 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except the first: all of the 500 and above series are categories largely of redirects to list articles, except perhaps a dozen actual articles together with the list articles. We do not normally encourage categories of redirects, particularly if the targets are the same. No objection to the change to "provincial". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, to be clear, are you therefore suggesting merging 500/600, 700/800 and 900 rather than the renaming and alternate splitting scenarios suggested above? It appears so, and coincidentally I've already created Category:Alberta provincial highways, 500 - 986 series as the umbrella category, which can become the targeted category for the merge you are suggesting. I would support that. Hwy43 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support merging all existing candidates to that new category, purging out all redirects. This should make a category of perhaps a dozen articles. If the 500+ series are anything like English B-class roads most are NN and have no articles, and should not have one. I suspect that the category creator hoped that all these would be created one day, but I hope not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename from "Primary Highways" to "provincial highways", it is supported in all the references. I feel that the space-hyphen-space is the grammatical choice for those documents, not an official name, and we should use our guidelines, which is an en dash with no spaces. I oppose merging all the articles into one category, and the removal of all the redirects. These highways exist, and only the page with the official name is categorized. The category provides an easy simple list of highways, which is useful, and allowable by WP:RCAT. I realize this might be a violation WP:CLN, though, as we already have a list and a navbox. I oppose splitting the 500s and 600s into their own categories. I have not seen anything to indicate that they are separate series', 600 is just a continuation of the 500s, 500–697 is the west-east series. Was "500/600 sub-series" our name, should it perhaps be "500–697 series", "717–899 series", and "901–986 series"? It has occasionally crossed my mind that since Highway 697 is so far from the north border, and since a highway right up against the west border is high in the 700s, would a new west-east road in the north dip into the 17 available numbers in the 700s? I know that is entirely theoretical, and maybe not pertaining to this discussion, but it does ask the question "could our assumption that series' are based on 100s be wrong, and should we just use the numbers we have?" 117Avenue (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have found no evidence of Alberta Transportation, or other reliable sources, ever disaggregating and publishing the 500 - 986 series of highways into three sets of sub-series (500/600, 700/800 and 900) or five sets of sub-series (500, 600, 700, 800 and 900), though I'd be pleased to review if such does exist. Without any confirmation that disaggregation into these sub-series exists, I have no opposition to merging all into a singular aggregated 500 - 986 series category to match Alberta Transportation's formal use of two series. It appears to me that creation of these sub-series at List of Alberta provincial highways and associated cats was a good faith attempt at organizing a significant amount of highways into digestible chunks. Also, I'm okay with leaving the category assignments on the redirect pages. Hwy43 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, with my fingers crossed that they don't change the naming scheme in a few weeks ;) I have no input on how to split or how many splits by number, but I would suggest making Category:Alberta Provincial Highways as the parent category for the delineated ones under discussion here. - Floydianτ¢ 17:39, 14 November 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.
