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: This category proposed for merging is for individual art galleries under the "Tate" institutional umbrella: e.g. Tate Britain, Tate Modern etc. The consensus at a previous CfD didn't like the use of simply "Tate" for this institution (despite the title of the main article on the topic) and preferred "Tate galleries", to disambiguate and to clarify that there are several Tate gallery buildings. As a result "Tate structures" was changed to "Structures of the Tate galleries", but this is needlessly clunky; "galleries" makes "structures" redundant. Now that the parent category is called "Tate galleries" it seems like the natural home for the articles on each of the individual galleries. Ham (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The present category name is not great, but the scope of the category is well worth retaining: the 5 different galleries run by the Tate. Mergeing them into the parent category will seem them lost in an assortment of other articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 28 January 2014 (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.
Delete If these were articles on the siblings as a group it might work, but these are articles on the individuals and thus this is a bad way to categorize the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2014 (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: I do give some weight to the comments by Seyasirt, and agree that 'differently bad' is not good enough. Also, DexDor is correct as to the usual use of the category name towards content rather than meaning. For that reason, it is tempting to declare no consensus and force the debate to continue until some way forward somewhere is found, no matter how narrow. However, I think we can do better than that this time. This time, there is evident consensus to do something, and indeed most people are fine with the nomination, so the question is: what, if anything, can be seen as an all-round agreeable outcome from this debate as to precise naming given the genuine and reasonable concerns raised? Therefore, I will assume that the early commenters are in probability likely to be OK with a renaming that is close enough to the nomination, even though not identical. I observe that the nominator has some agreement with those who disagree with the original proposal, and makes a proposal close to the two dissenting editors' suggestions but which has the benefit of providing ENGVAR flexibility built-in for the potential subcats. Thus, I conclude to RENAME ALLper Fayenatic london's suggestion, that being as follows:
and recommend that checking of membership is subsequently needed. Also note that the targets are all red links, so if this really cannot be OK, then we can undo it easily enough. Splash - tk23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Fayenatic, for taking this on. It was apparently too knotty a problem to solve all in one CfD, but this is a good first step. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A job title is the words used to describe someone's role - e.g. "Director of Marketing Department", "Deputy Base Commander" or "Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht". Articles like Armourer and Fighter pilot are about a role, not about a term used (in English) to refer to that role. I.e. the title of the article may be a job title, but the topic of the article is the job itself. How about "Military professions", "Military jobs", "Military specialisms" or "Military trades" ? DexDor (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename, but not this one I have the same reservations as DexDor: some of the members are titles of positions, but most are not. I also note that the US Army code is "Military Occupational Specialty code". Perhaps we could go with Category:Military specialties given that this one of the more common elements in the names of these terms; or "trades" might also work given that this seems to be the usual British term. It also might make sense to split these into separate "positions" and "specialties/trades" categories. Seyasirt (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the split would held resolve some of the national splitting since the positions are more nation-specific (and even branch-specific) than the trade/specialties, which tend to be universal. Seyasirt (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seyasirt: Please don't let the best be the enemy of the good. "Military job titles" is a little clunky, but it avoids the appalling ambiguity of "military occupations". If we can agree something less clunky, that'd be great ... but it would terrible to retain the current ambiguous title. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Job titles" and "occupations/specialties/trades" are not of the same ilk any more than attorney general is of the same class as paralegal. I agree that "occupations" is a problem, but "job titles" isn't just clunky; it's incorrect for a large part of the current membership. If we are going to rename this we need to use a name that isn't simply differently bad. My thought is that we need to split this up because some of the members are specific positions/titles/ranks and some are specific occupations/trades/specialties. It seems to me that one of the latter terms ought to suffice for the "job type" articles; we shouldn't mislabel those as titles simply because "occupation" is a problem. Seyasirt (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I have no objection to the alternatives proposed. Indeed, they would be better for some members which cover whole corps or professions. I lean towards Category:Military specialisms; is this more neutral than "specialties" in terms of WP:ENGVAR? We could use local terms anyway for national sub-cats, in particular "United States military specialties" for the US. As for members that are positions/titles/ranks, they should probably be within the Category:Military ranks hierarchy rather than this one. – FayenaticLondon19:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I had envisaged that "job titles" would be a parent category over "ranks" as well, but if we go with one of DexDor's or Seyasirt's suggestions, these would stay as sibling categories alongside the relevant national "ranks" categories. – FayenaticLondon19:47, 31 January 2014 (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.
Why bother, i.e. why not simply demote them to a category underneath Yugoslav collaborators? Do we have too many corner cases where more than one ethnicity applies? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In period April 1941- November 1943 there was no Yugoslavia, except exiled government and its army. Even after 1943 it is questionable if people who lived there had Yugoslav nationality. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dissolution of Yugoslavia was never recognized in an international setting. It is time for us to end anachronistic attempts to impose post-1990 nationalities on people who lived in the 1940s. That is what these really are. We categorize by nationality in the sense of being connected with a political entity. That is why we have categories for Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire and many others. Yugoslav is the best way to define these people and avoids the complex issues of trying to figure out how to describe people of one ethnicity who lived in the political territories theoretically linked to another. These people were Yugoslavs by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the NDH (which was a temporary successor state to Yugoslavia) was recognized internationally: by Axis Countries, plus Spain, Switzerland, and the Vatican. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2014 (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.
Oppose The rename was turned down 8 times before being put through. I am not convinced that this is widely used enough. Even the person who proposed the rename admitted that Beyoncé Knowles and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter are also used to refer to her. I am not convinced the mononym is common enough to justify the rename. In this case it seems a response to temporary trends, as opposed to looking at the sum total of all evidence on the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: As Adabow already mentioned, a consensus has been made to move the main article for this category to Beyoncé, so this category needs to be renamed accordingly (just like its multiple subcategories, eg. Beyoncé albums). I suppose it was turned down 8 times in the past, because at the time of those nominations there article was still titled "Beyoncé Knowles". Mayast (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2014 (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.
Comment they are not referred to as managers in reliable sources. For example, the announcement of Roche was appointed to the position of head coach and he is referred to generically as a coach.[1][2]. Merrick is the head coach of Wellington Phoenix.[3][4] Durakovic was sacked as coach and replaced by caretaker coach Magilton [5][6] The use of the word manager is a default in Template:Infobox football biography. Hack (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - FYI, 'coach' and 'head coach' are not the same, and it looks like 'head coach' and 'manager' are used interchangeably to describe the same job, such as [7] and [8]. I do not currently see compelling evidence that we need to change. GiantSnowman18:34, 27 January 2014 (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.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I am saying that I will not assess whether the suggested change has a valid or invalid reason unless all the relevant categories are treated in the same way. Consistency of category names is important to allow readers to navigate with ease, and editors to categorise pages effectively. No reason was offered in this case for breaching consistency. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 27 January 2014 (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:Appearance(s) made by Sam Sparro on a work that is not his own
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:Delete as overcategorization. Such categories lead to clutter and the content is best displayed by a discography page. Pichpich (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Most musical recordings include session musicians, band members, or guests. Categorising recordings by everyone who took part would lead to massive category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was just an idea I had for organizing the articles, and it was obviously a bad one. I didn't realize it was against any rules or anything. I made it, is it possible for me to just delete the thing myself? --LurganShmith (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been used in the past. However when it is populated it is questionable as a speedy delete. Just because the author has decided it is no longer a good option does not mean that others will not see a valid use. Now if the author agrees with the delete and there is no opposition, then WP:SNOW comes into play. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a horribly named article, what is defined as a work being "someone's own"? It also inherently is a case of categorizing works by a connection to a person whose connection is by it not being enough for him to "own" it, is admitted to be inherently non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (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.
