< July 20 July 22 >

July 21

Category:Human–animal interaction

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: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As mentioned on the talk page, the difference in purpose is indiscernible from Category:Human-animal relationships, which was renamed to Category:Anthrozoology (original creator mentioned they were unaware of the other category). Both articles are redirects to Anthrozoology. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one had never heard the term Anthrozoology though I have enough Greek to work out what it means; most of our readers won't. It is well established that category names sometimes need to differ from the main article for clarity. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above. That it could have been one of the many mistaken speedies that slip by every day because no one can be bothered to monitor the excesses there is no argument. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not mistaken. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tis (please continue by yourself) Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 23 July 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:Telecommunications terms

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the course of cleaning up categorization of telecommunications articles, I found a lot of articles that were miscategorized under "Telecommunications terms". When I finished recategorizing these, I found that there was only one article left in this category. This category does not seem viable, because by policy Wikipedia articles are rarely about terms. The subject of an article is the thing that the title denotes, not the words of the title itself. This category was just a dumping ground containing a random mixture of hundreds of articles with nothing in common except that they were about telecommunications and they had a title. There were articles on techniques, theoretical concepts, specific pieces of hardware, and even one on a telecom company. Many were not in any other category. Lumping these all together as "telecommunications terms" is just meaningless. One might as well just put every telecommunications article in this one category. This category should never have enough articles to be viable, and is just a bad idea as it seems to encourage miscategorization.--Srleffler (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Middle mile may be a valid article for this category. The other two articles do not comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines in their current form. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a single article is not generally supposed to cover unrelated meanings of a single word or phrase. These articles need to either be split up into separate articles on each meaning, or split and merged into other articles, or be moved to Wiktionary. In some cases several of these dictionary definition list articles can be split and merged with related dicdef lists to make several pretty good stubs. In any of these cases, the articles that remain on Wikipedia won't be articles on "terms", but rather articles on the things that those terms denote.
There are many telecomm articles like this, because years ago Wikipedia jump-started the production of telecomm articles by importing a public-domain telecommunications glossary, making dictionary-style "stub" articles for many hundreds of telecomm terms. Many of these could easily be converted into encyclopedic form, and the majority have been reformatted in the years since. More work needs to be done on this.
Even if there are five or six articles that are legitimately about telecommunications terms, I do not feel that that is enough to justify keeping the category, especially given that the existence of the category tends to lead to bad categorization. (People think anything with a title is an article on a "term", so any telecomm article can be dumped into this category, and no further categorization is needed.)--Srleffler (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For both Hop (telecommunications) and Master station, I was able to make them into articles about a single thing, rather than on multiple uses of a term. I have recategorized them accordingly.--Srleffler (talk) 03:35, 25 July 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:People educated at Presentation College, Reading

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 00:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural listing following the recent discussion for Category:People educated at Elvian School, where a consensus appeared to form for merging this category, which reflects the institution's former name, to the category showing the institution's current name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:01, 21 July 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:Fictional gunfighters

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough of a definite characteristic. It is too debatable what qualifies as a "gun fighter". JDDJS (talk) 17:51, 21 July 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nottoohappy

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SOCK ("Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny."), I don't believe this category should ever have been created. See also the SPI report. Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 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:Songs about poverty

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. Some pruning may be required.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one of these songs has text that says it is about poverty, others are silent about what the lyrics are about, some articles say the song is about other things including one, which, apparently is about "a black president of the US." The category doesn't actually specify what kind of poverty, poverty of ideas perhaps? At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING. Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics.
It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels. Richhoncho (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The word poverty isn’t only money-related, it can also mean scarcity or dearth of anything. You yourself have acknowledged this by pointing out Fast Car is about generational poverty. “Poverty” is also a very subjective word – one man’s riches etc. Some of the songs refer to ghettoes, but it would be abstract and incorrect to assume any song about a ghetto is also about poverty. Therefore this category fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have also looked at a quite few of the articles in this category, making comments at User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme. This is the problem with all the songs by theme categories. Lists may work better providing they are referenced and not allowed to develop as categories have done.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:12, 12 August 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:Latin alphabets

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. There's no consensus for change here, but a nomination for a restoration of Category:Latin-derived alphabets might meet with greater success.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) The article Latin alphabet is about the alphabet or alphabets used to write the Latin language. 2) The article Latin script is about the Latin script as defined by Unicode and includes letters from the Latin alphabet(s) and other characters. The Latin alphabet belong is one alphabet that uses the Latin script. 3) The category that is named "Latin alphabets" does contain alphabets using the Latin script as defined in (2) and is not restricted to the alphabet or alphabets as defined by (1) "Latin alphabet". If the category is renamed as proposed the name would be consistent with the definitions (1) and (2).
Some categories and articles that use "Latin-script":
For the hyphen see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Inconsistency - Latin script vs Latin-script Indiana State (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - I wrote the following before the above response by Kwamikagami) It follows an additional note. I found several red links to Category:Latin-derived alphabets, a page User:Kwamikagami deleted: 16:35, 16 August 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Latin-derived alphabets (C1: Empty category). Checking the first alphabet in the list I found that at 10:55 of that day Kwamikagami switched the category from "Latin-derived alphabets" to "Latin alphabets", that means Kwamikagami worked on emptying the established category, which has been used already in 2004 [2]. I don't see any discussion for this emptying nor deletion. This might also constitute a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, since in the creation of the new category Kwamikagami didn't provide a reference to creators of the category. Indiana State (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: WikiProject Writing systems has been notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 3 August 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:Lowell State College alumni

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. This is a simple name change, unlike the one below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lowell State College is a direct predecessor institution to UMass Lowell. Therefore, by standard procedure, its (one) alumni should be categorised under UMass Lowell. The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 21 July 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:Boston State College alumni

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. This one does seem different, as jc37 says, and the school seems to recognize that the merger was a big deal. The precedent for merging the categories of old institutions into new ones is clear, though. So if other discussions produce consensus around merging, this might warrant another look.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Boston State College merged with UMass Boston in 1982; therfore, its alumni should be categorised under the latter. The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 21 July 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:St. Francis College (Maine) alumni

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) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: St. Francis College is the former name of the University of New England (formed via merger with the New England College of Osteopathic Medicine, which had in turn been essentially a division of St. Francis all along). Per Wikipedia's standards, alumni of renamed higher education facilities are categorised under the facility's current name. The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 21 July 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:Cobb Divinity School alumni

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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cobb Divinity School was affiliated with Bates College (aka Bates Theological Seminary) for most of its existence, and wound up becoming Bates' religion department. Therefore, I believe the standard calls for Cobb's graduates to be categorized with Bates'. The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 21 July 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:LGBT people from Liverpool & Merseyside

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not need or want to start subcategorizing LGBT people by individual city that they come from; categorization by country and/or occupation is sufficient. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 21 July 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:Chicago Academy of Fine Arts alumni

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) 20:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chicago Academy of Fine Arts redirects to School of the Art Institute of Chicago, as it is a former name of the SAIC. The standard is to categorise alumni by the current name of the institution, I believe. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 21 July 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.
More