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.
It seems that the Wikipedia policy is against it, but there are some points. These people are related, at least on Wikipedia: a professor of mineralogy discovers a new mineral and names it after one of his masters. Some mineral stubs exist on Wikipedia more because the mineral name honours a notable person and less because the mineral itself is very important. The CNMNC/IMA master list (2012 version) has 4,814 valid minerals, WP Rocks and minerals lists 1,228 articles (maybe c. 400 mineral articles named after people, but only a fraction are notable people with a biography on Wikipedia). There are both: Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal and Copley Medal (list of recipients), they complement each other. An encyclopedia is a library, and a library uses lists (in the broad sense) to overview itself. You need tools, everything isn't just one format, e.g.: categories, hidden cats and maintenance cats (I defend pluralism: truck, car, streetcar, bus, ship and so on). You need tools to make your voluntary work easier. I feel that CfD, AfD and copyvio are on overload modus. I think that Wikipedia is getting vandalism after the Wikipedia hype (c. 2007) in part because it is successful and defends a neutral point-of-view. The truth on Wikipedia destroys propaganda, and so the powerful people who pay for the propaganda fight Wikipedia. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it is not "concerned with the maintenance or administration of the Wikipedia project itself, rather than being part of the content of the encyclopedia", I have edited the category page to prevent it being a hidden category. BencherliteTalk21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (check) and delete - an honours category not defining of its members. Exceptions are individually argued (not always successfully) for certain rare awards, usually those internationally recognised as a top achievement in their field (eg Nobel or Oscars) or perhaps where reliable sources find it defining (ie, the honour is the main description a person is introduced with, inclusion in the list is what they are famous for). No such claim has been made in this case. --Qetuth (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Nobel Prizes exists since 1901, naming minerals after people is older. A Nobel Prize in Earth Sciences doesn't exist. The Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, but a scientist can be honoured posthumously with a mineral name. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- we ought either to keep this or "minerals named after people" (but not both). One reason for only allowing award categories for the most important award is that the job is done much better by a list, which can place the winners in order and add something about why they won. That one is totally different; and since the naming is entirely at random dates, I see not objection to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Actually, I think that in this case a list could be very powerful. If laid out as a table, it could be sortable by person-name, mineral-name, date of naming, nationality of person, and so on. That's much more than can be achieved with a category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which also means a category is much harder to maintain. Anyway, the fact of the matter is, we avoid award categories. The person who gave the sample mentioned above would rate an article whether or not people had decided to name a mineral after him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2013 (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.
Oppose, unless those are all the same league with different names. Because putting all players that just played for that team in various leagues would make the cat structure inaccurate. As you would have to put Category:Toronto Lynx players as a sub cat in each of those leagues players categories which would then mean the player played in each of those leagues if he is in the Toronto Lynx players cat when that is likely not true for every player. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh comeon, it's all the same franchise dating back to 1997. And no it does not make the cat structure inaccurate. Playing in different leagues has nothing to do with this. The fact that these categories feature the same franchise, this is a case of WP:OVERCAT. Simple as that. – Michael (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- If this is all about the same team playing at differnet periods in differnet leagues, we do not need more than one category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is all one team. The current system has some players in multiple categories, which considering the number of categories most sportspeople end up in anyway is a very bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (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.
Rename to works by x writers. The nationality of the writers is clear and is what gives the works whatever nationality they have, so the form works by x writers seems the best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then why not Category:Works by Japanese writer etc, if you want to insist on works by writer form. In this case we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature. The problem is that I do not think the works have nationality, only the writers have nationality, we have subcats that are specifically by writer, and so that is what should be linked to Japan, Greece or anywhere else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CATNAME#Categories by nationality says (in connection with categorising) that society & culture have nationality, including literature, not "only the writers". This does make sense, because people take their culture with them when they emigrate.
These are the "by writer" descendants of the grandparent category Category:Literature by nationality. I think the sub-cats should follow the form of their parents.
If "we are using writer to mean someone who wrote literature" rather than e.g. lyrics, we need to include "literature" in the category name.
As for "Works by Japanese writer", a lot of readers will think it doesn't sound right and must be a mistake. In contrast, Category:French literature by writer (i) follows its parent and (ii) instantly makes sense.
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 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:Split. No reason to split out those with names since having a name is not a reason to not include them in the underpopulated main categories. With two parents, there is no reason not to correctly classify these. If discussion tends to support, I'll also nominate the sub categories. Looks like there is only one subcategory that needs merging. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the basic concepts are the same, they do appear to be different. The traffic circle is a controlled intersection where as the roundabout is not. While similar in overhead appearance, they are not the same. Have fun on the article merge discussion. If the articles are merged, then the categories can follow. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion I see that there's no technical authority cited for the difference, and the one expert in the discussion back last March basically said that there's no distinction. Of course there will be a battle but... Mangoe (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem I'm seeing is that the people who are populating these categories can't tell the difference either, to the point where essentially every circular interchange appears in both categories, either directly or because it's in a list. Given the definitions I've seen bandied about I would be hard pressed to say whether any of the many circles in DC are roundabouts by US standards (I'm inclined to say few to none of them are, because they are mostly controlled by traffic lights). I think it makes more sense to make one unified category for all of them because I think it's going to be impossible to cite specifically what they are. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem may be that the two categories were is separated trees. I made some changes to bring these closer together and maybe help to reduce the confusion in the future. Of course there is the one intersection that was converted from a traffic circle to a roundabout. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all of the traffic circles were removed so all that is contained here is roundabouts at this time. So this is now basically a rename and not a split. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were it so simple. Looking in Category:Named roundabouts in the United States a cursory examination shows that perhaps none of the members is actually a roundabout in the modern US-traffic-engineering sense. Consider Dupont Circle, perhaps the most extreme deviant: it has two concentric circles and an underpass, all controlled by a complex system of traffic lights. It doesn't seem to fit the definition given in the roundabout article, and it does seem to fit with that article's claim about what makes a traffic circle. I am generally wary of removing members during a discussion, but I would suggest that we're not necessarily going to find sources that say "traffic circle, not a roundabout" or vice versa about every one of these, or perhaps even more than a couple of these. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2013 (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 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:Upmerge. This category is mis-named, as the contents are by medium rather than genre. However, it is in any case an unnecessary layer, so should be upmerged rather than renamed. – FayenaticLondon18:24, 30 January 2013 (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.
I don't understand why 1980s would be a good target; the games aren't limited to that decade. The proposed renames make sense to me. —Ost (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (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: For the same reasons why its parent article was deleted. Like the list, the definition of "controversy" is ill-defined and based almost entirely on someone's opinion of what constitutes such. Nearly all of the entries fall into one of two groups: labour disputes and fighting/brawls/violence. Those both have their own categories, and I am not seeing any great reason to join them in this fashion. Resolute15:08, 30 January 2013 (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: Redundant. Rhinolophus is basically the only genus in the family Rhinolophidae (there's one poorly known and questionable fossil too). This just adds an unnecessary layer to the categorization scheme. Ucucha (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2013 (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 of California, Los Angeles School of Law alumni
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.
Support Rename The standard is to append the word "alumni" after the name of the school and this should be a speedy rename. The name of the associated category is irrelevant here and avoids the utter illogic of having the category name not match the title of the parent article, though when it comes to Los Angeles and categories it seems that all logic is out the window. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We also follow WP:COMMONNAME and per the school's website, the name is "UCLA School of Law", which is why the title of the parent article is UCLA School of Law, matching the real-world usage. "University of California, Los Angeles School of Law" is a manufactured title with no legitimacy or provenance. It does not correspond to any reality and we should discourage such inconsistency. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There are conflicting "conventions", but I think here matching to the article name about the specific school trumps consistency with the other categories/article names. We do not discourage acronyms in category names if the article name uses acronyms: eg, Category:NATO, Category:OPEC, and many others. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem here is that we have multiple naming conventions in play. The top parent article is University of California, Los Angeles. So to me it makes the most sense to use that as the base for all names associated with the institution. I guess it is safe to say that this one can not be decided on it's own. The decision really needs to be made in consideration of the rest of this group of categories. While the main article is at UCLA School of Law, the infobox uses University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't a clue—I'm not a graduate. I'm not sure that's a good measure, however. The name of the universities I attended are in Latin script on my diplomas. "VNIVERSITAS etc." Good Ol’factory(talk)22:39, 3 February 2013 (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 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 and college book publishing companies
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: Most of the companies in this cat also publish magazines and/or academic journals. Few companies concentrate on one of these publication types alone, so creating "University and college journal publishing companies" would just create a cat with almost the same content as this one. Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:University presses and purge of those that are purely commercial publishers (e.g. of books fro university students. We have Category:Books published by university presses, so why not one for the prsses themselves? The category may ast poresent include a few that belong with colleges that are strictly not universities, but I doubt that matters. I would add that the Oxford and Cambridge Univ Presses are not companies but emanations of the university; and I suspect that this applies elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2013 (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.
upmerge per BHG, at least for now. If one assumes that high school sports conferences are notable, then I know that there are more out there than just that one. However the only justification for the present category would be to include the schools, which seems less than defining. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (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 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.
