October 31
Category:Iowa Round Barns: The Sixty Year Experiment Thematic Resource
- 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Iowa Round Barns: The Sixty Year Experiment Thematic Resource to Category:Round barns in Iowa
- Propose merging Category:County Courthouses in the Iowa Thematic Resource to Category:County courthouses in Iowa
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Previous discussions have supported the position that being in an MPS or TR is not defining. So upmerge to the main parent in case some are not listed there already. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (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:MCC cricketers
- 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:Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers. Issues of scope are noted, but there is no consensus for anything other than a straight move here.. Courcelles 03:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:MCC cricketers to Category:Marylebone cricketers
- Nominator's rationale: I realise this has been discussed before and was shot down by WP:CRIC members, but I'm bringing it back up because I feel that MCC is ambiguous in this context. Firstly, MCC is a dab page and it is common practice to follow the parent article for categories. Secondly (and most importantly, IMO), "MCC cricketers" could easily refer to Melbourne Cricket Club players (Melbourne Cricket Club is often referred to as MCC in Australia). As a side note, I have chosen "Marylebone cricketers", as opposed to something like "Marylebone Cricket Club players", for consistency with Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team. Jenks24 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This really should be Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers if the contraction must be expanded. The players are representing the club, not the geographic location. Hack (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my original thought and I'd be fine with that. I only went with "Marylebone cricketers" because that seemed to be the common trend in Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team. Jenks24 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm uncomfortable with "Marylebone cricketers" for the reason outlined by Hack but Jenks24 is correct that MCC is ambiguous. But I'm more uncomfortable with the usage of the category because it includes players who made what can be termed "guest appearances" for the club, whereas I think it should really be used for players who were club members and perhaps even restricted to those players who played only for this club (especially in the early years, this was frequently the case). Although it would be a real headache to implement, I'm wondering if the category should be renamed along the lines of "Marylebone Cricket Club members" and used accordingly? ----Jack | talk page 09:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I do not think "MCC cricketers" is ambiguous, as cricketers provides the context. The initials are more regularly used than the full name of the club. Cjc13 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the use of "cricketers" differentiate Marylebone Cricket Club from Melbourne Cricket Club? Jenks24 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside of the club itself is MCC really used as the name of the Melbourne club? For example, on Victoria Premier League website the name is given as Melbourne on the league table.[1] Cjc13 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, definitely. Taking the link you gave, it took me two clicks to get here, where you can see Cricket Victoria using MCC extensively. See also this gnews link. Jenks24 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not find your evidence completely convincing. The section on Cricket Victoria website you found is clearly an area specific to the club with data provided by the club so it is not surprising that it abbreviates the name but in general areas such as players averages,[2] "Melbourne" is used, not "MCC". On the gnews search, the items seem to relate to the club MCC and its running of the MCG rather than the Melbourne cricket team itself. A search for "MCC cricketers" on gnews only shows references to the London club. Cjc13 (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was just the first google search that popped into my head. If want some specific examples, I had a quick search for 'Brad Hodge MCC' and got this and this in the first page. If you really want me to I will find a bunch more refs. Also worth noting that CricketArchive does not use MCC for its categorisation, it uses Marylebone Cricket Club. Jenks24 (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two references are fron The Age which is a Melbourne newspaper so that it is not surprising that it uses some local terms in its articles. Outside of Melbourne I do not think MCC is generally used for the Melbourne team. I accept your point about the cricket archive, but that goes back to the origins of the club when it was just another club side. Cjc13 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I share Jack's discomfort about the use of the category for players whose affiliation to MCC is merely as occasional hired hands. But I think his suggestion of "Marylebone Cricket Club members" wouldn't work as a category for people who played cricket for MCC, because a lot of MCC members (eg Sir John Major, Sir Tim Rice) aren't cricketers of any note. "Marylebone cricketers" isn't right; I'd be inclined to leave it as it is, or change to "Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers" which is accurate, if tautological. Johnlp (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessarily tautological, you could be a MCC squash player or real tennis player. Hack (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Hack. I hadn't thought of that. Jenks24 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I feel it's fine how it is now, but wouldn't be opposed to Category:Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers. In regards to who is included in the category, I've always tagged articles with the category if players have played at least one first-class/List A match for the club. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support rename to Category:Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers. A good example of unconscious and unintentional bias. While in a cricket context MCC would usually be read as "Marylebone Cricket Club" for a non-trivial sub-group in the context of the sport (i.e. Australians) MCC would be generally read as "Melbourne Cricket Club". While the English club has the longer and grander history, the Australian club has a reasonably substantial history in the sport as well. I would also suggest moving Category:Melbourne cricketers to Category:Melbourne Cricket Club cricketers. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was ok with MCC as it was, but do take on board the Melbourne point, and wouldn't complain if a move was necessary. If a new name is required, "Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers" is the way forward. However, a lot of our categories drop the Cricket Club/County Cricket Club for a reason I can't quite fathom (brevity?). Perhaps "Marylebone/Melbourne CC cricketers" would be an option? I'd echo the points made by Mattinbgn and AssociateAffiliate directly above this comment too.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I also agree with a change to Category:Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers. And given that Melbourne Renegades and Melbourne Stars will soon play, disambiguate Category:Melbourne cricketers to Category:Melbourne Cricket Club cricketers as per Mattinbgn. Harrias talk 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree with you and Mattinbgn that the Melbourne category should also be renamed. Jenks24 (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it was me who created the category in the first place, and I'd be perfectly happy with a rename to Category:Marylebone Cricket Club cricketers. It's a bit cumbersome, but the Melbourne point is fair enough. I take on board Jack's point about "hired hands", but id you followed that logic you'd also have to exclude Andrew Strauss from Category:Somerset cricketers on the grounds that he only played for them in 2011 as a matter of convenience. I wouldn't support such an exclusion: I really think subjectivity should be kept to an absolute minimum, and as such the ordinary "did they play a qualifying match for this team?" question is the best, or at least the least worst, we have available. Loganberry (Talk) 16:54, 5 November 2011 (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:Leonid Brezhnev family
- 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) 22:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Leonid Brezhnev family to Category:Brezhnev family
- Nominator's rationale: There doesn't seem to be any other Brezhnevs unrelated to this family tree on Wikipedia. Brezhnev redirects to Leonid Brezhnev.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2011 (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 Roman Catholic Religious Sisters
- 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:English Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:English Roman Catholic nuns
- Nominator's rationale: A Religious Sister is a nun. If this is supported I will nominate the rest of the recently created Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters, which appears to be redundant to the more familiar Category:Roman Catholic nuns.Occuli (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2011
- Oppose:This category was created because Sisters are NOT nuns in the tradition of the Catholic Church. They do not live as monastics or keep enclosure, but are involved in active services. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Since when did nuns have to be enclosed? The distinction was only official for a period, & is just too confusing, even to Catholics, to maintain in a category scheme. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like calling a Jesuit a monk. Religious Sisters (which I capitalize as it's a status) work in ER's and battlefields and drug-infested slums. It's a different way of life than that of the cloister, which IS that of a nun, as it is distinguished by the terminology in the official documents of the Catholic Church. The confusion arises mostly in English, and from the fact that Sisters had to fight for 700 years to be recognized as an official way of life in the Catholic church, since they weren't nuns and didn't want to be nuns. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the church does not maintain this distinction officially today, and only did for a brief period by church standards. It is in any case artificial and imprecise - for example the Ursulines] have never been cloistered and call themselves nuns. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Daniel the Monk is broadly correct; see Religious institute, Catholic religious order, Nun#Distinction between a nun and a religious sister for some background (remembering that WP is not an RS). Still, I propose a merge on the grounds that category is but one branch of Category:Roman Catholic nuns, a tree which clearly uses "nun" in the broad, colloquial sense of women's religious. I believe the best approach is to merge these categories, then begin a separate CfD for Category:Roman Catholic nuns and all its subcategories to be renamed something like Category:Members of Roman Catholic women's religious institutes. The distinctions between orders and congregations have been largely done away in Canon Law, and I would refer the question of whether making the distinction in the category system is useful to WP:CATHOLIC.- choster (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This last recommendation seems reasonable. Since Wiki already has a separate category system for monastic life, though, perhaps another alternative might be to place nuns under that, keeping Sisters under the general categories of religious orders? Just a thought. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would oppose Category:Members of Roman Catholic women's religious institutes as far too unfamiliar. The way to handle such issues is by notes on the category page, but we will just confuse everybody by using such subtle and questionable distinctions in names. These are not huge categories. If we need to do anything, which I'm far from sure we do, we should use "nuns and religious sisters". Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2011 (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:Villages in Gilan Province
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Villages in Gilan Province to Category:Populated places in Gilan Province
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Our common practice, other than for places with city status is to place these into "populated places" categories, rather than villages. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (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:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border to Category:Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article and updated MOS. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2011 (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:Cornes Family, Adelaide
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Cornes Family, Adelaide to Category:Cornes family
- Nominator's rationale: Rename.disambiguation not needed; family is a common noun. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2011 (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:Chappell Family, Adelaide
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Chappell Family, Adelaide to Category:Chappell family
- Nominator's rationale: Rename.disambiguation not needed; family is a common noun. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2011 (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:Mexico – United States border
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Mexico – United States border to Category:Mexico–United States border
- Nominator's rationale: (including subcategories) per main article and updated MOS. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2011 (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:Bonython Family, Adelaide
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Bonython Family, Adelaide to Category:Bonython family
- Nominator's rationale: Rename.disambiguation not needed; family is a common noun. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2011 (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:Barr Smith Family, Adelaide
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Barr Smith Family, Adelaide to Category:Barr Smith family
- Nominator's rationale: Rename.disambiguation not needed; family is a common noun. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2011 (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:Canada – United States border
- 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 renaming. The Bushranger One ping only 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Canada – United States border to Category:Canada–United States border
- Nominator's rationale: (including 2 subcategories) Per main article and updated MOS, remove the spaces around the dash. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2011 (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:Films not on DVD
- 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) 04:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Films not on DVD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Whether a particular film came out on DVD, VHS, Blu-Ray or any other support boils down to a whole bunch of factors which more often than not have little to do with the movie itself. Film articles seldom discuss the issue and whether a film was ever released at some point in some country on DVD might be quite hard to check. Somewhat surprisingly, one of the two films currently in the category has an article which mentions a DVD release in the lede and I find this pretty telling. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems like a case of Over-categorization as they would already be listed by current form factor. X not in Y would tend to be ever approaching zero, the longer it is around. It may become useful one day, but I dont believe we are even remotely close to that day yet. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We don't categorize articles by things they are not. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – not even marginally defining. Occuli (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2011 (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:Tailed delta-wing aircraft
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Tailed delta-wing aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. I created this category awhile back, but looking at it now I realise it's pretty WP:OC and not especially defining. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 31 October 2011 (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.