Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_8

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 renamed (C2A) per creator and sole editor's request. In the future, changes like this can go to WP:CFDS. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:List of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood seasons to Category:Lists of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood seasons

Nominator's rationale: Category is for multiple lists, not a single one. DanTD (talk) 23:57, 8 June 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.

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1906 Summer Olympics to Category:1906 Intercalated Games

Nominator's rationale: The article for this event has been at 1906 Intercalated Games since 2008. Courcelles 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and comment Rename per nom to match main article. This and all the sub-cats would need renaming too. Lugnuts (talk) 17:55, 8 June 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.

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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Former Shropshire football clubs to Category:Defunct football clubs in Shropshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to follow the format of the parent Category:Defunct football clubs in England, and to clarify that this category contains defunct footballs clubs in Shrophsire rather than that FCs which used to be in Shropshire but are now somewhere else.
See also a large group nomination at CfD 21012 June 6 on renaming the parent Category:Shropshire football clubs and 39 other other categs to the "Football clubs in countyname" format.
Note that although this categ currently contains only 3 articles, it has plenty of scope for expansion, and so does not violate WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - fine by me. David (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:30, 10 June 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.

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 - And incidentally, it wasn't tagged either. - jc37 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Irish Roman Catholic archbishops to Roman Catholic archbishops in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: The cat is related to the country, not the nationality. The cat is linked to the archbishoprics that are physically located in Ireland. Many of the archbishops listed are Cambro-Norman or English, not necessarily Irish nationals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, reluctantly. The nom is right that this category's name does not reflect its apparent scope, but AFAICS its scope is intended to be by nationality rather than by location of diocese: "Irish people who are Roman Catholic archbishops". It has a parallel in Category:Irish Roman Catholic bishops, which has a counterpart of Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland‎. The same model should be adopted here, by the creation of a new Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Ireland‎. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland has been notified --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; nomination sounded sensible and was well-intentioned, but actually this is part of Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by nationality. There is a separate hierarchy for Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese, and so far five countries have intermediate categories for "Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in [country]". Nevertheless the nominator has done well to raise this, and I suggest creating Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Ireland which should hold the two sub-cats of the nominated category, and be placed into some of its head categories. To reduce scope for confusion, there should be "see also" links between the two. (Edit conflict) – Fayenatic London 13:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree on the need for "see also" links, to reduce confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Ireland has a couple more sub-cats that belong in the new one proposed above. – Fayenatic London 16:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Query If this opposition is successful, must all non Irish nationals be purged from the cat ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. They should be categorised within archbishops by diocese. The proposed new category will locate them by diocese in Ireland. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, kind of People looking at this as a hierarchy of bishops by their country of origin are, I believe, not looking deeply enough. For example, Category:American Roman Catholic archbishops contains the category Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the United States; this is typical of the countries that have multiple archdioceses and enough bishops to justify the "by diocese" breakout. What this would imply is that the "Fooian Roman Catholic Archbishops" categories are in fact catch-alls for those archbishops whose diocese doesn't have enough archbishop articles to justify the breakout or where there is but one archdiocese in the nation. If we are going to have a "national origin" category hierarchy, then the "bishop of" hierarchy has to be separated from it, and either every diocese has to have its own article, or the catch-all articles have to be named differently from the catch-all "by origin" categories. Personally I think the two hierarchies are going to overlap almost completely except for a few missionary bishops. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well be right. Nevertheless there is one hierarchy by occupation and nationality, and one hierarchy for postholders by specific office (bishops by diocese). There should be "see also" connections rather than a parent-child link between them. – Fayenatic London 18:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose

The purpose for this category, is to specifically address the fact that the heirarchy in Ireland is divided, not by the state (as the Republic of Ireland), but on a per-island basis. By using 'Irish RC, all the bishops on the island can be considered Irish. By changing it to 'bishops in Ireland', the nom attempts to paper over this difference. It's an important distinction, which is why RC dioceses in GB used to be the name of the category. Since that got effectively overran, we now have RC dioceses in the ROI, and RC dioceses in the UK, which doesn't reflect the ecclesiastical division. It would be nice if we could restore the old cat name RC dioceses in GB, because then we could have RC dioceses in Ireland and RC dioceses in GB without the irritating category issues. What say ye, wikipedians?Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused By the rationale offered above, user Benkenobi18 should advocate "Support". As he correctly states, the hierarchy in Ireland is on a per-island basis. The name for the entire island is Ireland. Also, the present title of "'Irish RC" would, as the user also points out, lead the reader to think that all the bishops could be considered to be Irish nationals. This, however, is not the case as many were English, Flemish, Norman, French, Spanish and Italian. To have a category of bishops that only contained Irish nationals, a new category mustbe created. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Catholic archbishops in Ireland, but purge if necessary. Since the Catholic church is organised on al all-Ireland basis, there are no grounds for splitting between RoI and NI. I expect there are or have been Irish Catholic missionaries who have become archbishops outside Ireland. Similarly several CAtholic archbishops in GB are at least of Irish extraction, if not nationality. This should be category by nation, not nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This category is meant to include Irish nationals who served as archbishops in other countries. If it does not at present, its content should be expanded to reflect this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 28 June 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.

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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Defunct cricket venues to Category:Defunct cricket grounds
• Category:Defunct cricket venues in Australia‎ to Category:Defunct cricket grounds in Australia‎
• Category:Defunct cricket venues in England‎ to Category:Defunct cricket grounds in England‎
• Category:Defunct cricket venues in Ireland‎ to Category:Defunct cricket grounds in Ireland‎
• Category:Defunct cricket venues in New Zealand‎ to Category:Defunct cricket grounds in New Zealand‎
• Category:Defunct cricket venues in Scotland‎ to Category:Defunct cricket grounds in Scotland‎
• Category:Defunct cricket venues in South Africa‎ to Category:Defunct cricket grounds in South Africa‎

Nominator's rationale: Rename all to match parent Category:Cricket grounds, and articles List of cricket grounds by capacity, List of Test cricket grounds. The current name follows the title of the other parent Category:Defunct sports venues, but it makes more sense to follow the terminology of the sport of cricket. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cricket has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there was a discussion at CFD 2006 June 24 on renaming Category:Cricket grounds to Category:Cricket venues. The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Number 57 13:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per 57. extra999 (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renames while questioning why cricket grounds that are defunct should be categorised seperately than those that aren't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 8 June 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.

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) 10:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians having fun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: User categories should group editors on the basis of characteristics that are relevant to collaborative editing of the encyclopedia. This category does not do that. It serves merely as a bottom-of-the-page notice when, simply put, there is no reason anyone would need to browse this category in search of members. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No one has fun around here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't the place for fun. Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which requires work, not fun. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even though WP:MMORPG -- shhhh! – Fayenatic London 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a social club. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Despite the silly name, I see this category on the same plane as any other interest-based category. Category:Wikipedians who like Transformers serves essentially the same purpose as Category:Wikipedians having fun - it's an informal affiliation, nothing more, nothing less. In my view, a little lighthearted socialization plays an important role in community-building. Having fun --> a stronger community --> a better encyclopedia. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that Category:Wikipedians who like Transformers helps editors find each other to collaborate on Transformers related articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur regarding the value of "lighthearted socialization" and, thus, would not support deletion of WP:FUN or of most pages within Category:Wikipedia humor. However, I disagree that a user category can or ought to attempt to fill that role. A category groups related pages so that a person could more easily browse them; in a case like this, however, the category functions as a badge or label, not unlike a userbox. In essence, the issue lies not with the end ("informal affiliation") but the means (user categorization). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:09, 13 June 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.

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 delete. Clearly a joke category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Users Who Sleep In Their Underwear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: User categories should group users on the basis of characteristics which are relevant to collaborative editing of the encyclopedia. This category does not do that, clearly. (It does, however, make me wonder about users who sleep in others' underwear.) It serves as little more than a humorous "bottom-of-the-page" notice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not facebook. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:31, 8 June 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.

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) 10:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Deaths on the MV Princess Victoria to Category:Deaths due to shipwreck
• Propose merging Category:Victims of the sinking of the MS Estonia to Category:Deaths due to shipwreck

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCATs with no significant potential for expansion that are not part of an established category tree. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge; in addition to the nominated targets, also upmerge the first category to another parent, Category:Accidental deaths in Northern Ireland. – Fayenatic London 16:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and added that category to the three articles in question to simplify the closing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:04, 10 June 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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Water supply infrastructure in South Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Not part of a larger scheme and there are sufficient categories that can contain the single page and two subcats. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The head categories Category:Physical infrastructure in South Africa, Category:Water supply infrastructure and Category:Water supply and sanitation in South Africa are all parts of hierarchies; why do you not think any of these count as larger schemes? – Fayenatic London 12:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valuable part of wider categorization hierarchies, per London. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could have accepted "upmerge to all parents" (without prejudice to re-creating if there are more articles in future), but not "delete". – Fayenatic London 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to all parents per FL. Right now there is only one by country subcategory so this is not a part of a series and it is not well populated. Recreation should be allowed when there are more articles or this becomes a well established series. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate. This seems like a useful and logical intersection of several other categories, and retaining the intersection allows easier and more consistent categorisation. It is wrong to say that this is the only such category, because there is also Category:Water supply infrastructure in the United States, which has existed since 2008. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 15 June 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.

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 (C2C) to Category:Federation architects. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Federation Architecture to Category:N/A

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is an article in Category space. The content should be renamed to an article List of Federation architects. A new category could be created Category:Federation architects per Category:Architects by style. Tassedethe (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article-ify per nom. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment couldn't this be filed as a speedy WP:RM as a misplaced article? 70.24.251.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily delete. There already is a Category:Federation style architecture and associated article. Not sure if anything in it is salvageable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:58, 8 June 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.