Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 12

< September 11	September 13 >

September 12

Category:Sport in Bohemia by sport

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) 01:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sport in Bohemia by sport to Category:Sport in Bohemia

Nominator's rationale: Structure has just one category. There is no reason why we need to divide this from the parent Category:Sport in Bohemia. SFB 18:03, 12 September 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:Christian religious leaders

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 as container category. – Fayenatic London 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Christian religious leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is hopelessly vague. It includes articles on obscure cranks like Peter Ruckman alongside Jesus, offices like abbot, lists like list of Popes and List of Anglican diocesan bishops in Britain and Ireland. Individual and definable offices or roles (like Category:Prelates or Category:Television evangelists) can and should be kept but they need to be navigable from some method other than this almost random mish-mash category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'll agree with all the arguments of the nom, but think the solution is to keep the cat and put a note that all articles need to be placed in subcats (the tree Category:Christian religious leaders by nationality‎) perhaps a by century is also needed, so that recent folks whose influence is not widely felt would end up in concentrated in the 20th & 21st century cats and not mix with Jesus, Calvin, Luther, etc. I think deleting the cat would leave a void where it would be more difficult to find some particular Christian religious leader of 16th century France or such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Previous nomination WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_17#Category:Christian_religious_leaders was closed as Keep and Cleanup. Choster's keep argument then seems to me to be still relevant. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I've removed offices and lists from this category, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize If a category isn't cleaned up after two years it begs the question if its really a workable grouping. I'm open to making this a container category and see if that works. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but containerise as above. I have been working piecemeal on merging the layer of "clergy" categories into the "religious leaders" categories, see Category_talk:Religious_leaders#Clergy_categories, so I do not see deleting this layer as desirable. It should however contain only or mainly sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is meant to be a broad category with lots of subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not always easy to classify someone in the subcategories because most subcategories assume that people are a leader within a single denomination and most subcategories assume that a leader belongs to clergy. These assumptions aren't always met. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but containerise as above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 26 September 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:English-only movement in the United States

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. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English-only movement in the United States to Category:English-only movement

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Speedy was denied with the following discussion:

Category:English-only movement in the United States to Category:English-only movement – C2D: English-only movement —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this isn't the only English-only movement in the world, or in history, or in the history of the United States... the article is problematically named. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you think the article is problematically named, than feel free initiate a WP:RM discussion to fix it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose contents matches the category name. Rename article to match since the article is only about the United States. And it is about any and all English only movements in the United States so both the category and article could be pluralized. Hmains (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category describes well the contents. Specificity is needed here (English-only jobs are an international phenomenon for a start). SFB 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose are probably rename the article. This is a name that could easily apply in other settings and we need clarity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 20 September 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:Military history of Rhodesia during World War II

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) 01:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: During World War II the country was called Southern Rhodesia, not Rhodesia. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – subcats of Category:Southern Rhodesia in World War II. Oculi (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some articles in these categories and subcategories involve some Northern Rhodesian contributions to WWII: John Edmond and Long Range Desert Group. Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia were called "Rhodesia" up until 1964. Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southern and Northern Rhodesia were very much separate entities, the former being a self-governing colony and the latter a protectorate directly controlled by London. Both then and now "Rhodesia" is often used in a pre-1964 context where "Southern Rhodesia" is meant, even officially (for example, many Southern Rhodesian military units, such as the Rhodesia Regiment, the Rhodesian African Rifles and, later, the Rhodesian Light Infantry, omitted the word "Southern"). This leads to muddying of the waters regarding the true situation. It would be clearer to have Northern Rhodesian subjects (such as the Northern Rhodesia Regiment, for example) go into separate categories on Northern Rhodesia, and Southern Rhodesian subjects go into categories on Southern Rhodesia. Regarding the specific points you rose, all the guys who joined the Long Range Desert Group came from Southern Rhodesian regiments. I'm afraid I don't quite see where John Edmond comes into this as he was still a child during World War II. — Cliftonian (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Edmond is in one of the categories, and it says he was born in Northern Rhodesia. Well, I as long as the two countries are kept separate... Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any World War II-related categories on the John Edmond page. He is in the "Rhodesia Regiment personnel" category as he was in it in the 1950s and 60s. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split -- Northern and Southern Rhodesia were separate colonies and should each have a category(ies). It may be tha the Northern Rhodesian one(s) will be rather small. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Rhodesia should not be used to refer to a country before the UDI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 20 September 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:Allotropic materials by element

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:Allotropes. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allotropic materials by element to Category:Allotropes – Presently the Category:Allotropy and its subcategories are a mess. Category:Allotropic materials by element has only two subcategories, Category:Carbon forms and Category:Sulfur forms, which is a bit disconcerting but worse are the articles in the category; Borophene, Ozone, and so on which are allotropes of elements other than carbon and sulfur. Residing in the parent Category:Allotropy are other allotropes such as Disulfur, Superdense carbon allotropes, Tin pest and so on.

I suspect the reason for the mess is that Category:Allotropic materials by element is too ambitious (and also has redundant phrasing, since allotropes by definition are composed of individual elements).

So I propose a new structure for this topic: Category:Allotropy will contain the article on Allotropy and any other theory or overview articles such as Allotropes of oxygen, plus the subcategory Category:Allotropes. Then Category:Allotropes will have Category:Carbon forms and Category:Sulfur forms plus all the other articles on actual allotropes. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the category is not tagged. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've never done this before..... Now tagged. Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly defines topics between the specific and the general. Much needed in this instance. SFB 22:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Allotropy or possibly merge both to Category:Allotropes: I note that the main article is at the former. Then purge the categoriy of articles that should be in subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 17 September 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.