Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 14

[edit]

Category:New York State Bar Association members

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First: This is redundant, since we have already Category:New York lawyers and a whole set of categories of different types of lawyers. Since most lawyers (or all nowadays?) are members of the local bar associations, it would be an unhelpful hold-all category. Second: Although most sources say "practiced law", I have very seldom seen a source stating that some lawyer was a "member of the bar association" (for the above reason, I suppose). Kraxler (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (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 York City Bar Association members

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same as abovementioned for State Bar. These two categories were made up yesterday by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Then he added quickly a few names of lawyers who had been dead for decades when this association was founded... Kraxler (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (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:Reservoirs of British Columbia

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See "Category:Reservoirs in Canada" below, Wikipedia:Category names requires "manufactured objects" to use "in". Tradition seems to be that reservoirs fall under that classification, rather than "landforms". The Interior (Talk) 17:52, 14 October 2012 (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:Petroleum economics and industry

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. According to the main article in this category and to be in line with the parent industry category. At the same time, it probably needs some cleanup to make sure that petroleum industry and economics articles are correctly separated between this category and Category:Petroleum economics. Probably also some recategorization between this category and Category:Petroleum production is needed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2012 (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:Reservoirs in Canada

[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: withdrawn by nominator. ([1]) – Fayenatic London 19:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency within the Category:Bodies of water of Canada by province or territory group, this cat should use "of". Same goes for Category:Reservoirs in Quebec. All other waterbody divisions in Canadian cats use the "of" construction. The Interior (Talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (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:Female softball players

[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/Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since softball is effectively played at a high level as a competitive sport by only women, a notable softball player is going to be, by definition, female. Therefore, this category effectively duplicates Category:Softball players and its category hierarchy and serves no useful purpose. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2012 (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:Opinion polling for elections in New Zealand

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: broader and per convention at Category:Opinion polling by country -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That's a sensible suggestion. Looking at what is in the parent category, though, you can find hardly anything that is not election-related (with the exception of the UK and the US). But either way, the parent category name is broader, and there's no reason why this category name cannot be broader as well. Schwede66 18:13, 14 October 2012 (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:Images of The Beatles

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one image, itself tagged as an invalid FUR for deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:18, 14 October 2012 (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:Loudermilk albums

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (note: target is speedy-cfr'ed for Category:Gosling (band) albums.) Same band, two names: no need for two categories. Possibly retain as a {{catredirect}}Justin (koavf)TCM 08:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've always wondered how to cat albums by bands that have changed their name. Surely moving to the current name is incorrect for those early releases? Why can't both be retained? Lugnuts And the horse 09:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Because it's the same entity and there is only one article on the topic. A Silver Mount Zion chooses cutesy names for each new album--do you think it aids in navigation to have seven different one-article categories for each iteration of their name? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, good pick with ASMZ! Hmmm, interesting point. I don't think it's a navigation issue - each category could have a hatnote to the band's next name. I think it's more a case of not re-writing history (albeit a tiny part of history). In this case, it would simply be wrong to move The Red Record to the category of Category:Gosling albums, as they weren't known by that name when they recorded that album. Maybe it's not important in the big scheme of things. Has this ever been raised at the Album Project before? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:09, 14 October 2012 (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:Islamic universities in Algeria

[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:Universities and colleges in Algeria. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Both contain the same single entry. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:26, 14 October 2012 (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:Images of Kerli

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has erroneous subcategory, which can be upmerged to Category:KerliJustin (koavf)TCM 07:50, 14 October 2012 (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:Kelly Osbourne

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Too few articles, eponymous categories are discouraged —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:44, 14 October 2012 (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:Kingdom Come

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged, this can all be accomplished easily with {{catseealso}}Justin (koavf)TCM 07:37, 14 October 2012 (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.