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: I noticed this issue when Category:The Harvard Advocate people was created. It sounds, structurally, like "The Little Green People", in that the combination of "the" and "people" makes it sound oddly like "the" is specifying the group of people instead of being part of the publication name. The word "people" is unnecessarily nonspecific, because all members of the category have become notable only after moving on from having been students, so "alumni" is a more precise category definer. Use of the word "The" is inconsistent across categories, and is unnecessary, even if it is part of the official publication name. The proposed renames will also increase uniformity among subcategories of Category:Harvard University alumni, where none of the other subcategories begins with "The", and "alumni" is consistently the word that is used. (In each case, the "displaytitle" template will be used to put the publication name in italics in the category name.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with the possible confusion these category titles may cause but they should be consistent with how we have the main articles titled e.g., we have The Harvard Crimson so the related categories should use the same title. I'm afraid that the root of the possible confusion here lies with those who named the publications, not with us. (I'm ambivalent about the "alumni" vs "people" distinction.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we should take responsibility ourselves for any lack of clarity that is within our control, and I would really like to prioritize clarity over rigidity. And strictly speaking, it's actually The Harvard Lampoon[1], so we haven't been consistent about that. But if editors feel strongly that "The" is important, then we should consider alternative wording structures, such as Category:Alumni of The Harvard Advocate, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked around at categories for some major newspapers, and we do use "The" for those categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it, and that's true. But it also contains subcategories that are more specific, for editors, founders, illustrators, publishers, and writers. And there are no "alumni"-related categories within it, except two of the ones discussed here. As a "people" category, it's self-fulfilling that many subcategories would also use "people". Category:Alumni by educational institution obviously uses "alumni" instead. The magazine people subcategories include ones like Category:Playboy people that are so named because they, in turn, have subcategories such as Category:Playboy Playmates, which is why they are framed broadly as "people". Within Category:Harvard University alumni, the three categories here stand out as the only ones using "people". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be one approach to making things simpler. But here is why I have low enthusiasm for doing it that way. All of the pages in these three categories are populated only by alumni. 100%. None of these persons becomes notable until after graduating, never while still undergraduate students. By categorizing them, therefore, as alumni, we are not only being more specific but also more accurately reflecting page content. To bump them up to the parent category of "people", we would only be taking the easy route for this discussion, but not serving the content optimally. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if some other subcategories of Category:Harvard University people are also (almost) exclusively populated with alumni. But that doesn't really matter, they are in the people category tree because they work for Harvard; and they may also be alumni but as a separate fact. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I just looked at it, and the subcategories of the "people" category, except for the alumni subcategory, are indeed about people who work for Harvard: administrators, coaches, university fellows, and so forth. In contrast, the three categories discussed here are not about persons who have worked for Harvard, but about students who were involved in three particular activities and who subsequently became notable after graduating, but not notable for any positions or jobs at the university. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly now, why does this have to be so difficult? They are alumni, we already have other categories of alumni, and it's entirely accurate to call them alumni. I really do not get it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are not alumni of the magazine, but alumni of Harvard and editors of the magazine. Hence two different categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Category:Harvard University alumni also includes Category:Harvard Crimson athletes even though they did not "graduate" from the school color, and Category:Nieman Fellows even though that is not a degree-granting program. Of course, Harvard College is the degree-granting institution, but the word "alumni" is not restricted to persons who are related by the degree granted. Here are four sources that clearly indicate that one can be an alumnus of a ballet troupe, library staff, television show, or factory: [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest that this category is for alumni in the meaning of former editors of the magazine? That would be an odd category, asaik we never categorize people by explicitly former occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, let's remove all persons who have either quit their jobs, or died, from occupational-ish categories. On the other hand, they are former editors, and present-day alumni. So it's good news that the proposal is to use the word "alumni" and not "editors". In any case, I am proposing to use the word "alumni" in the well-sourced dictionary meaning of the word. If there is an alternative "Wikipedia category" meaning, it's probably WP:OR and definitely rather silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the other way around, people by occupation categories always include people who were formerly occupied, no distinction is being made between present-day and former occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same reply still holds. They are former editors, and present-day alumni. The proposed category names are based on "alumni". And being a student editor is not the same kind of "occupation" as being the professional editor of a real-world magazine. And I am proposing to use the word "alumni" in the well-sourced dictionary meaning of the word; any other proposed meaning based on other categories is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Perhaps you need to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly you haven't convinced me at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously you do not appear to have convinced me or anyone else here, nor have you in any way demonstrated that what I said just above ("The same reply still....") was incorrect. If this discussion keeps going around in circles, I'm going to have to start an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish is right, and the category renaming is appropriate. The The thing is a red herring: we don't say John Smith is a The New York Times reporter. EEng 05:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Wikipedia usage "alumni" is used as a synonym for "students". People can be put in the alumni category the day they matriculate. A Category like Category:Harvard University people is meant to include those who are instead staff, factulty, administrators, coaches and other connected people who were not students. It might work a lot better if we renamed all alumni categories to students categories. An equivalent to these categories is that the categories for players are sub-cats of the alumni category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? And if so, is renaming the right solution, or should we simply restrict the alumni categories to former students only? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OFFS, yes really. I think you need to look up matriculate. EEng 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And insofar as I know, all of the pages in these three categories contain only former students and not present-day students, as I have already made clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are so few people who are current students who are notable, it makes little sense to exclude them from alumni categories. Especially since they will all become former students at some point. I think early in my editing days I actually did try and create categories for current students, but quickly realized that it did not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if you agree about that, then that's really agreeing to calling the three categories here "alumni" rather than just "people". The members of these categories certainly satisfy the definition of "alumni" as former students. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow all of the discussion above but if we ever intend to add people other than former or current Harvard students to these categories (do these organizations have faculty advisors?) then "alumni" will be too narrow a category. ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. The answer is no, there are no faculty advisors, and no members who are other than undergraduate students at the time that they were working on the publications. (Sometimes, the publications will run pieces written by persons other than undergraduates, but such persons would never be candidates for these categories because of their transient affiliation.) Thus, 100% of the category members are and will continue to be former Harvard (or Radcliffe) undergraduate students. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (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 tiny football club with the category not having potential for expansion. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a category out of an extended series cause huge maintenance headaches. Editors who build football biogs routinely add the article to a category for every senior club they played for. They may not know whether the club was minor, and may reasonably argue that a club's minor status is irrelevant because it remains a defining characteristic of that player's career ... and in any case, many players go on on from minor clubs to success in bigger clubs. So, rightly or wrongly editors add the categories even if they are redlinked, assuming that the category should exist and will eventually be created.
The inevitable consequence is that if this categ is deleted, it will probably be added to the article again. And it will be added to any other article related to a player of that club ... causing an endless cycle of entries in cleanup lists such as Special:WantedCategories.
So apart from the general principle of not deleting small categories as part of a series, it's clear that the nominator didn't do basic WP:BEFORE homework. It doesn't take long to click WhatLinksHere, or to follow the interwiki link to the native language article. Just one click in each case.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The real question may be whether a club regulated from the Norwegian 3rd division to the 4th is significant enough to have more than a brief article on the club. Norway is a relatively small country so that lower divisions are not fully professional, the criterion for having more. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the article. It is about categorising players, who may well have gone on to bigger clubs.
And it is not about current players. Your point about lowly status might be relevant if this was current players only, but this club was not always so lowly, and en.wp editors diligently write articles about players from all eras. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 8 January 2018 (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: Categories with just one entry and one subcategory. One nominated category has only one entry. The majority of non AAA American baseball teams don't have their own category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:34, 30 December 2017 (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.
Parishes in Diocese of Waterford and Lismore[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 Improve grammar. The parishes are "of" the diocese (i.e. integral to it), not just "in" the diocese. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Category:Church parishes in Ireland has 3 subcats, using 3 different formats: "Parishes in", "Parishes in the", and "Parishes of the". Please add the other 2 subcats to this nomination, so we can agree a common format. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as requested, Cashel and Dublin added also. Have used the form without "Roman" but can live with the addition per below. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comments Normal English grammar is to refer to "the Diocese of ..." so one of those two forms should be taken; however, there are a host of issues beyond that. First, Waterford and Lismore is within the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly, so the category is at the wrong level in the hierarchy. Second, the innate notability of parishes is questionable, and when I look at some of these articles, they are either articles about towns, or they contain minimal, directory-type info. Third, my recollection is that we've tended to minimize coverage of the diocesan (as opposed to arch-diocesan) level of the RC hierarchy as less important, so on that basis I suspect that this category ought to be upmerged into the archdiocese. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Purge, only keeping actual parishes in the category (not villages or towns). Neutral wrt renaming or merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there is only one article in this category about a Catholic parish, namely Aglish, Ballinameela and Mount Stuart. It makes one wonder whether this is a useful category (tree). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1 In rural Ireland, there is often little practical difference between a town / village and a Catholic diocese; the two are usually culturally synonymous and territorially coterminous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A topic can have more than one defining characteristic. Most topics have several defining characteristics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the characteristics seem to be too overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 While there is a consensus to delete the word "Roman" in most articles and categories, I'm happy for it to remain while the parent article and category contains the word "Roman". But's it's not like the are any independent Catholic or even Anglican dioceses of the same name, so the "Roman" disambiguator is quite superfluous. But for a quiet life, I can live with it for now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can live with it for now, why have you just proposed renaming the Dublin and Cashel+Emly categs "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 While Cashel is the metropolitan province, with Waterford and Lismore being a suffragan diocese, I fail to see how this prevents it having useful sub-categories in its own right. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Parishes of the Roman Catholic". Keep "Roman Catholic" for consistency with the names of their parent diocesan categs, and use ""Parishes of the" because this is about diocesan structure rather than geography. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support while my preference is to drop the word "Roman", I can support this alternative for all 3 nominations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we even need to call them "Catholic" dioceses? As far as I can tell there is no name ambiguity. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with the names of the diocesan parent categories. If the parent dioceses are renamed, these parish containers should be renamed to match ... but it will be silly and confusing for these categs to use a diff name. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposal. The only reason for adding Roman is to distinguish from Anglo-Catholic and minor denominations. I do not think there is any room for ambiguity here, and splitting church parishes by diocese is the normal way of classifying them. If there are non-conforming siblings they can be dealt with in a subsequent nom, preferably when this one is closed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note on "Roman Catholic" vs "Catholic". Arguments can be made either way about the substantive merits of either option. Sadly, several editors here seem to miss the issue of consistency.
It's a long-standing principle of en.wp category naming that follow the name of the head article. Those which do not can be speedily renamed per WP:C2D.
It's also a long-standing principle of en.wp category naming that category names should be consistent with those of other similar categories . Those which are not can be speedily renamed per WP:C2C.
Editors arguing for these categories to omit the word "Roman" are starting in the wrong place. If they believe that the diocesan name should omit the word "Roman", then open a WP:RM discussion to rename them all. If there is consensus to do so, then the categories can be speedily renamed match. But nobody in this discussion has even attempted to advance a reason why the parish categories should deviate from the name of their parent category and head article.
The overwhelming majority of CfDs are speed renamings to achieve consistency, because consistency makes life easier for both readers and editors. It would be perverse and disruptive to intentionally and unnecessarily create inconsistency. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: that 9yo failed proposal might be relevant to a discussion on article names (if only on;y as an illustration of what has not been agreed), but I don't see its bearing on category names, which derive from articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 7 January 2018 (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: That, for example, the city of Daroca is on this tourist itinery is WP:NON-DEFINING. Other places-on-trail categories have previously been deleted. DexDor(talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Or, if it's only being used in articles about places to indicate that they are located on the trail, rename to something like "Towns on the Camino del Cid". But I don't know how useful such a cat would be. (Note: I did not look into how the cat was being used when I recently proposed its current name; I was just fixing its awkward original name.) Erictalk 16:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The correct description would be places on Camino del Cid, but the precedents are that we do not allow these performance-type categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2018 (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:Inventions invented through English science and technology[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: Unclear inclusion criteria. Currently contains 1 article cotton gin and is not part of a "Inventions invented through X science and technology" tree. Tim! (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I would question whether the cotton gin's invention has anything to do with science. I would question the merit of a category relating to technology, as every mechanical invention will involve technology, itself a term of ill-defined scope. If it was a product of English science but invented in (say) Germany, the categopry might have some merit, but Category:English inventions is as much as we need for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–the modern cotton gin was invented in the United States, not England. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2018 (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, but WP:TROUT the nominator @Warren for emptying the category before a consensus was reached. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic case of WP:SMALLCAT. Contained one article (already moved) and will not contain any others. Warren-talk- 03:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Warren: which was the article you removed from the category? Note that we usually leave the category untouched while it's being discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2018 (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:World War II military equipment of Czechoslovakia[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: These categories were created by me and @Gjs238 to fill redlinks in Special:WantedCategories. Similar redlinks exist in the latest update of Special:WantedCategories, as the tree is incomplete.
However, I am not sure whether any of them should exist, since Czechoslovakia did not exist as a de facto state during WWII. (see German occupation of Czechoslovakia). This was not military equipment of the 1939–1945 Czechoslovak government-in-exile; it was designed or built in Czechoslovakia, but it was military equipment of Nazi Germany or its puppet states.
I can see a case for deleting these categories as misleading. OTOH I can see a case for keeping them as part of the military-industrial history of Czechoslovakia. So I make this nom without recommendation, in the hope of establishing a consensus on whether or not to complete this category tree (but I may be persuaded by arguments to keep or delete). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through them, some 1930s prototypes are categorised as "World War II", and one was actually Hungarian. Given that 1. as pointed, out, Czechoslovakia did not exist during World War II proper; 2. We categorise military equipment by nation of manufacture, not of use, and thus even if it was used by the government-in-exile, it wouldn't be categorised as such; and 3. Not all of these even served in World War II with anyone, I recommend Upmerge to unmodified "Foo of Czechoslovakia" as appropriate. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/delete per above. Note: I've removed one article from these categories as it made no mention of Czechoslovakia. I recommend (see essay WP:CATMV) treating these WW2 categories as being for vehicles introduced during the WW2 period (use a list to list the vehicles used in a conflict - that can better cover complexity) - e.g. to fit with other period categories such as interwar. DexDor(talk) 09:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- To my surprise (despite the apparent oxymoron), I find that the third item is a valid category, though it needs a better name. The two Panzers listed were designated as Czech. Others were designed before the war, being taken over by the succeeding Slovakia. Perhaps Category:Czech-designed tanks 1935-1950 would cover its scope. The first two are unnecessary and should be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories based on decades and periods (e.g. interwar) form part of larger hierarchies and combine to cover the whole of history. We don't (afaics) have any 1935-1950 categories. DexDor(talk) 14:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Czechoslovakia did not exist, however quite a bit of Czechoslovakian kit was confiscated and used by the Germans as well as service in other countries (e.g. Avia B-534, Avia B-135 fighter in Bulgaria (as well as Germany), or the vz. 24 rifle).Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (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.
