Terpene

thcscience_admin
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16[edit]

Category:University of California, Berkeley women alumni[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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:56, 23 May 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.

Category:Players in the Welsh Premier League[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: no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard title for this type of category, e.g. Category:Premier League players. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current name is unambiguous, but the proposed new named could refer to Welsh players in the (English) Premier League. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That goes against long-establish consensus at WP:FOOTY - it won't happen. We need to stop treating our readers like idiots. GiantSnowman 12:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, we do need to stop treating our readers like idiots. Readers who are competent in reading English can spot an ambiguous title, and their use of the category for navigation is impeded until they have figured out which mean was intended.
    It's a pity that the local consensus at WP:FOOTY hasn't paid some attention to this ambiguity, which can be resolved by a simple alteration of word order ... as has already been done with this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:44, 17 May 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.

Category:Republicanism in Ireland[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 (for now). To implement the other changes suggested by RA, Category:Irish Republican Movement needs to be nominated with a reference back to this discussion. Obviously, Category:Republicanism in Ireland can be re-created as proposed if consensus holds when that discussion is concluded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category could be confused with Category:Irish Republican Movement, whose lead article is Irish Republicanism - it should be renamed or deleted, but I'm not sure to what. KarlB (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one article currently in the category is only tangentially about Ireland at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Republicanism in Ireland is a real phenomenon. It was originally a strand within nationalism, then after partition was identified in the Free State with the anti-Treaty forces which were resisting the swearing of an oath of allegiance to the king, among other things. This category is a natural member of the "Republicanism by country" family and is named on the pattern of all the others. I have made Category:Irish Republican Movement a sub-category of this one (for some reason it was in Category:Republicanism by country, but Category:Republicanism in Ireland is surely the correct parent) and have also added a page or two to it. Moonraker (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB, forms of republicanism, the political or philosophical concept, can exist without a "movement" in support of them, just as forms of monarchism can. If one of the two categories mentioned by the nominator were to be deleted, it would be better to keep Category:Republicanism in Ireland and to merge Category:Irish Republican Movement into it. If the second of these is kept, then 'Irish Republican Movement' is not a proper name and the initial letter of 'movement' should surely be lower-case, and perhaps that of 'republican', too. Moonraker (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see the logic of Moonraker's argument, but I am not persuaded that it is actually viable to try to separate the philosophical notion of a republic from the reality of its history in Ireland. Apart from the Cronmwellian era, I am not aware of any Irish movement (or even strand of thinking) in support of a republic which existed separately from the idea of ending English rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 17 May 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.

Category:Career statistics football(association)[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 (also category is now empty). The Bushranger One ping only 19:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article, which is up for AfD and will almost certainly be deleted. This category will never be populated and serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the category is to serve as a repository for career football player statistics. Rather then nominating for deletion, you could have contacted me and discussed this with me first. You did not do so. Nominating the category 1 day after creation is rather POINTY.Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing a category - what better venue than Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? Please stop with your unfounded accusations of POINTedness as well. GiantSnowman 19:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no evidence that seperate career statictic articles are needed. If we do not have the articles, we should not have a category to group articles that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 16 May 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.

Category:Parents[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure the purpose of this cat, which only contains one sub-cat (filicides). As a category (Parents), it's hopelessly broad... KarlB (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category could potentially include all sorts of things. At present it only includes one subcategory, it is not unefull as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category is probably a hang-over container category from the days in which we also had the subcategories Category:Fictional parents, Category:Adoptive parents, Category:Natural parents, Category:Parents of twins, and so forth—all of which were deleted by consensus at various times. So there is no longer a point to the nominated category, really, if all we have left is the subcategory Category:Filicides. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the fact that its sub-cats have been slowly deleted makes having it not worthwhile. It seems that we have a consensus against virtually all x parents cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a little puzzled... Apparently nobody has noticed that I made a point of stating that this was purely a "Container Category" when I created it - right there in the edit history. If the sub-cats are gone, then it no longer has a raison d'etre. PS - Thanks to KarlB for the notification. Cgingold (talk) 09:10, 21 May 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.

Category:Bob's Burgers episodes[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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This show has not been on long enough to warrant separate categories for episodes by season. Even many long-running series don't have them, but I see no need to break it out yet for a couple dozen episodes altogether. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. I have reviewed the articles, and they all currently fail WP:GNG, so unless they are improved we may not need any category for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is no reason to divide the articles by season at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator — I'm not even convinced that we actually need separate articles about each individual episode at all, given the paucity of referencing. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you may be right, but this is not the forum to discuss merging articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 May 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_16

Leave a Reply