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) 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Even if there were minimal requirements for eponymous categories, I don't think this one would meet them. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough there to warrant an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 16 February 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:Beaches of Greater Moncton
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) 23:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. I also wonder if this is another case where "Greater Moncton" boosterism is getting a bit out of hand. The sole article in this category Parlee Beach Provincial Park is in Westmorland County, New Brunswick, which contains the Moncton metro region but is much larger. Moreover, while the provincial park's article mentions that the "nearest city" is Moncton, it does not appear to fall with the borders of the Greater Moncton metro region proper, from what I can tell. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Resolute 20:11, 15 February 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.
Digraphs and trigraphs
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Digraph and Trigraph are both disambiguation pages. The main articles are at Digraph (orthography) and Trigraph (orthography). The article name and the category name almost always match, and I don't see any good reason to depart from that standard here. These were speedy nominations that were both opposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree for same reasons as Triangulation, above. The article needs a disambiguator but that is a bad reason for forcing the category to have a disambiguator too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree for same reasons as Triangulation, above. The article needs a disambiguator but that is a bad reason for forcing the category to have a disambiguator too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It is well-established that if anything, category names require more disambiguation than article names.- choster (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and abundant precedent. (It qualifies for speedy because matching category names to the corresponding article is not controversial; omitting a disambiguator in contrast is controversial.) Oculi (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Willing to reconsider if David Eppstein presents a compelling argument for why the cat space has different issues in this case. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 16 February 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:Sethian albums
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sethian albums to Category:Sethian (band) albums
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The principle meaning of Sethian is being related to Sethianism, as in Category:Sethian texts and Category:Sethianism. The article about the band is Sethian (band), so I suggest the disambiguator be added to avoid confusion. This was a speedy nomination that was opposed, but no mention was made in the objection to the ambiguous nature of the word "Sethian". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree for same reasons as Triangulation, above. The article needs a disambiguator but that is a bad reason for forcing the category to have a disambiguator too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It is well-established that if anything, category names require more disambiguation than article names.- choster (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and abundant precedent. Oculi (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and per squazillions of precedents, to match main article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm suprised speedy rename was controversial. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 16 February 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:Bandundu
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Bandundu is ambiguous and is a disambiguation page. The main article is at Bandundu (city). The category name almost always matches the article name. This was a speedy nomination that was opposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree for same reasons as Triangulation, above. The article needs a disambiguator but that is a bad reason for forcing the category to have a disambiguator too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It is well-established that if anything, category names require more disambiguation than article names.- choster (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and abundant precedent. (It qualifies for speedy because matching category names to the corresponding article is not controversial; omitting a disambiguator in contrast is controversial.) Oculi (talk) 00:50, 15 February 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:Triangulation
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article is Triangulation (geometry). The category is not about Triangulation. The category name almost always follows the article name. In this case, even if there is no other category that uses the name "triangulation", it makes sense to disambiguate to avoid confusion. This was a speedy nomination that was opposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Triangulation (geometry) needs a disambiguator because of all the other unrelated articles listed in Triangulation (disambiguation). But Category:Triangulation does not, because there is no other triangulation category to disambiguate it from. Making the category name cumbersome and unmemorable to reflect something going on in an entirely different namespace is just mindless wonkery. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my previous speedy comments: "Triangulation (geometry)" is a stupid name. It doesn't distinguish these kinds of triangulations (partitions of planar regions into triangles) from one of the many other kinds of triangulations (the one at triangulation, pinpointing locations by means of distances from two or more other known locations) because both are geometric. Nevertheless, in article space we need to use the stupid name because both things are called triangulation and we can't have two articles with the same title. In category space, we don't have this problem: only one of the many meanings of "triangulation" makes sense as a category rather than as a single article. So we shouldn't carry over the stupidity of the article name to the category for the sake of a foolish consistency with a bureaucratic rule. The rename would not make it any easier to read or edit Wikipedia. In fact I'm not convinced that there is or should be a rule that a category must be named after its main article: what WP:CFDS #C2D actually says is "Renaming a category to match its eponymous article" but this says nothing about categories whose article is *not* eponymous, and in any case I don't consider the "(geometry)" to be a proper part of the name of the article, it is only cruft that's there because of the technical limitations of the wiki. One possible solution that I would be happier with would be to rename the category to be "Triangulations", because that is significantly less ambiguous (one doesn't use the plural for the geolocating meaning), but again that would not be the same as the category's main article title because article titles are almost always singular. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matching category names to article names is not a "bureaucratic rule" to promote "foolish consistency"—it's a common practice (nearly universally applied) so that it's easy to know what the category is named when one knows the name of the corresponding article on the same topic. With the current name, the natural assumption is that Triangulation is the main article—a mistake I temporarily made until you told me to stop making a mess. With a rename, such confusion would be far less likely to occur. One could say, "well, Good Olfactory is just stupid"—but I've seen enough wonkiness with the way categories are applied to know that the current set-up is simply asking for problems to occur which will only be avoided by consistent patrolling, which is usually not an ideal solution. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment David, thanks for elaborating; I appreciate it. I think forcing the category name to be the same as the main article name could be for the sake of a foolish consistency if editors were opening each category to see what articles were their and read any description at the top of the page before using them. In fact, I sometimes apply to articles because I'm using a tool called Hotcat that simply shows the category name. Although parentheticals are ugly, it aids greatly for that usage. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and abundant precedent. (It qualifies for speedy because matching category names to the corresponding article is not controversial; omitting a disambiguator in contrast is controversial.) Oculi (talk) 00:54, 15 February 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:Museums in Greater Moncton
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not enough articles to populate this category. It's the only museum in Moncton. Steam5 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Triple upmerge is also fine by me. Note however that user:Steam5 is emptying these parents out of process. Oculi (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the one article that was in the category at the time of nomination is not the only museum that exists in Moncton; it's just the only one that had been categorized as such (which isn't the same thing). I've found another, and I'm not prepared to definitively assert that there aren't still further museums whose pages I just haven't found, or which just haven't been written up yet. At any rate, both Fredericton and Saint John have their own museums categories, neither of which is meaningfully larger than this one is, so I'm not clear on why Moncton should be singled out as a "no museums category" exception — however, the category should be named and structured at the city level rather than the metropolitan area. Rename to Category:Museums in Moncton, which in fact is what it was called from the time it was originally created about three years ago until mid-January of this year, when an editor came along, arbitrarily renamed it to this and depopulated the city-level category. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this Parks Canada list, "Greater Moncton" would include the Memramcook Museum and the Memrambook Valley Eco-Museum (two different things, apparently), as well as the Pré-d'en-Haut historic site in Memramcook, New Brunswick, and the Keillor House Museum in Dorchester, New Brunswick. Greater Moncton is synonymous with the Moncton CMA or Census Metropolitain Area, the largest in the province. If and when we get articles on these other museums, I believe it will help readers to have them grouped in some kind of category that indicates that these are all in the Moncton metro region. In short, even if the deletion/upmerge is successful, we may wish to recreate this category at some point in the future. For now, I'd support Bearcat in returning this category to what is apparently its original name and scope, and a Rename to Category:Museums in Moncton. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 20 February 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:Streetcar builders
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.
Propose renaming Category:Streetcar builders to Category:Tram and railcar manufacturers
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Use of the term "manufacturers" and not "builder" is standard. At the same time suggest using "tram and railcar" instead of "streetcar" - as per parent category Category:Tram transport, and parent article Tram. could also just use Category:Tram manufacturers. (page List of tram builders can be renamed to match). Please discuss this point. Thanks. Mddkpp (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tram manufacturers. "Streetcar" redirects to tram, so the convention appears to be to treat the two as synonyms but use "tram" as the primary term, and I agree that "manufacturers" seems to be the std term for similar categories such as Category:Rolling stock manufacturers. A railcar is usually heavier and larger vehicle than a tram, so there is a separate Category:Railcars. Rather than merge the two it seems better to create a separate Category:Railcar manufacturers if needed. Note that there is also Category:Streetcar designers, which should be renamed to Category:Tram designers. However, Category:Streetcar suburbs appears to refer a distinct phenomenon of streetcar suburb, which is notable under that name and should not be renamed.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the renaming, and above comments. Useddenim (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Hugo999's proposal - retains the WP:ENGVAR affected issues and follows the rules of logic. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:38, 16 February 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:Polyhedra rest category
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) 09:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Unless I'm missing something, this looks to me like a "miscellaneous", "remainder" or "not otherwise specified" category that was designed to fully empty Category:Polyhedra into subcategories. As such, it can be upmerged to its parent per WP:OC#MISC. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge up per nominator. This is not a defining characteristic (it's for polyhedra that aren't any of several other things, rather than ones that are something), and there are only four articles in it compared to many in the parent category so merging will do no harm. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. We don' categorise things by the absence of a set of one or more defining characteristics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I see no point in a category for "other" items. They should be inn the parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peterkingiron. Steam5 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 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.
Obscure Old Fooians again
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to remove ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article, which in this case is the name of the school.
Unfortunately none of these "old fooian" terms have a readily apparent connection to the school name:
Old Instonians (Royal Belfast Academical Institution) is based on an unusual contraction of a fairly common word. Even if readers somehow guess that "instonian" relates to "institution", they will be hard-pressed to guess which institution is involved
Old Lerpoolians to (Liverpool College) appears to be based on a rare contraction of "Liverpool". The word "Lerpool" does not seem to be used in any other context relating to the city of Liverpool, and appears to be unused on Wikpedia
Old Novocastrians (Royal Grammar School, Newcastle) and Old Norvicensians (Norwich School (independent school)) are terms which appear to be drawn from Latin names of their respective towns. It is perverse to use category names which make sense only to Latin scholars, when the standard descriptive format offers a clear plain English alternative.
Old Tamensians (Lord Williams's School) is based on an obscure corruption not of the school's name, but of the town where it is based: Thame.
Even for readers who are familiar with the practise of some English schools of calling their alumni "Old Fooians", these names are utterly opaque. Categories exist as a navigational device, and unintelligible category names (which appear without explanation on the biographical articles they categorise) are an obstacle to navigation. Readers should not be forced to open up a category page just to find out what it is for.
The alumni of the school can of course call themselves whatever they like, and their terminology should be explained in the head article and in the body text of the category itself. Renaming the categories to improve navigability will therefore cause no loss of information to the reader. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what this contains without context. The connection between something like "Old Parkonians" and "Ilford County High School" is too opaque to expect readers to understand.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname all -- These are all quite obscure cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This approach is a good compromise because it is easy to understand and free of jargon and unambiguous and promotes a consistent approach. Category redirects can always be kept on the Old Fooians forms of the category names. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for clarity and uniformity. Pichpich (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator and for consistency. --Bduke(Discussion) 16:31, 18 February 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.