March 10
Category:EAA competitions
- 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) 12:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:EAA competitions to Category:European Athletic Association competitions
- Propose renaming Category:EAA Meetings to Category:European Athletic Association meetings
- Nominator's rationale: To expand the ambiguous acronym 'EAA', which applies to several entities other than the European Athletic Association that might or do organize competitions of various types – e.g., the Estonian Academy of Arts, European Association of Archaeologists, Experimental Aircraft Association and others. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:16, 10 March 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:Windows Phone 7 games
- 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 C2C/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Windows Phone 7 games to Category:Windows Phone games
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The rename of the article should replace "Windows Phone 7 games" to "Windows Phone games" because the current name for Windows Phone does not use the word 7. WPSamson (talk) 13:18, 10 March 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:Variety entertainment
- 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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Variety entertainment to Category:Variety shows
- Nominator's rationale: The main article is Variety show. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 11 March 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:Old Rannochians
- 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 - jc37 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Old Rannochians to Category:People educated at Rannoch School
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in Scotland.
- Rannoch School was a small school (only 300 pupils at its peak) which existed for only 43 years, and the "Old Rannochian" terminology has not achieved wide usage. There are no hits on Google News for either "Old Rannochian" or "Old Rannochians", and only one hit each on Google Books for "Old Rannochian" and "Old Rannochians". (By contrast, the best-known "Old Fooian" term is "old Etonian", with 4290 hits on GoogleNews.)
- The term is also ambiguous, because "Rannochian" appears to be a demonym for "Rannoch", the school having been located in Kinloch Rannoch, beside Loch Rannoch, and the wider area of Rannoch is probably best known for the huge Rannoch Moor.
- The rename will assist navigation and reduce the risk of miscategorisation ... and it will cause no loss of information, because the "Old Rannochian" term is explained in a hatnote in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDS. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on principle. Ericoides (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What principle?
- The only principles I can see for opposing this renaming is that you are a firm adherent to a principle that category names should be a) obscure c) ambiguous, c) have no common uasge, and d) use a term which is not used in nay of the biographical articles in these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all abusive speculation. Please desist. Moonraker (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If Ericoides wants to explain what "principles" lie behind his WP:ILIKEIT !vote, then Ericoides can do so. In the meantime, all the rest of us can do is to speculate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think xe means "Opposing just for the sake of it". Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. This term is both obscure and ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to cure ambiguity and obscurity and jargon issues. And on principle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, this one is based on the name used by the group of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present name is correct and should be left as it is. Moonraker (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The descriptive format "People educated at Rannoch School" is also clearly correct, because it is a plain English way of noting the defining characteristic by which these six people are being categorised. The inhouse terminology by which these alumni of this former school (closed in 2002) label each other has achieved no common usage, and since Wikipedia editors have so far identified only 4 notable people educated at the school, I don't see any grounds to expect that its lack of common usage will change.
- Moonraker has been repeating in numerous similar CfDs the tautological assertion that "the only purpose of a category is to categorize", and he repeats it here. Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics." That ability to "quickly find sets of articles" is best served by a category name which does exactly what it says on the tin, rather than by the obscure jargon of the handful of alumni of a small, long-closed school. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- REname -- I have heard of Rannock Moor and would guess this refers to a school near Rannock, but I have never heard of the school: too obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 15 March 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.
Highest points by country first-level subdivision
- 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: Upmerge Category:High points in Monroe County, Florida; rename Category:Highest points of Scottish counties to Category:Highest points of historic Scottish counties; Keep rest. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that these categories all be deleted. Most of these geographical regions already have lists of highest points, and this I feel is sufficient. These categories I don't see as useful at all basically, because when you look at one of the categories, you won't see what county each geographical location belongs to. For that you need to go to the list article. Other than it looking nice at the bottom of each article that is placed into these categories, I don't see their utility. __meco (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fine to me. —Keenan Pepper 09:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Firstly you may not be able to see what county each geographical location belongs to immediately, although those familiar with the area will probably have a good idea, and many users have pop-ups, making the information obvious when hovering over the name. In other words, there is no need to go to the list article. There is a problem with the Scottish version in that the counties were replaced by council areas 15 years ago, but it wouldn't be hard to re-name and update - but then there wouldn't be a list without further effort, making the category even more useful. Ben MacDui 10:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep highest points – we categorise by defining characteristics and the ones I checked stated in the first line 'X is the highest point in county Y'. 'High points' sounds rather arbitrary: how many are allowed in Category:High points in Monroe County, Florida? Oculi (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge Category:High points in Monroe County, Florida to Category:High points in Florida. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Like Oculi, I find this fact defining at some level. However do we need to categorize the highest point in every city? So I wonder if we are going to see this having arbitrary inclusion criteria? If not, the membership in a lot of these categories will be small if inclusion is truly the highest point since there is only one highest point in Florida. So while not opposed to the categories I wonder if the readers would be better served by Listifying these? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MacDui. Ericoides (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Highest points are geographically interesting. In the US, for instance, they are often considered tourist attractions and have roadside markers pointing the way to them. Having them just thrown into more general categories would make them hard to find. That said, the "Category:High points in Monroe County, Florida" is pushing it and I would not oppose deletion of it. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These categories are cool. Just check out the map feature in Category:Highest points of U.S. states. This is the kind of thing that really makes Wikipedia awesome. When you have logically complete datasets, you can start doing great stuff with them. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm beginning to think that as a part of this we should delete Category:High points in Florida as arbitrary and consider deleting or listifying Category:United States National Park high points as not defining and arbitrary as currently named. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify or perhaps delete and start again as a list. The subject is certainly interesting, but is much better handled by a list, which can name the county, state, or country and its highest point. If there is more than one high point per polity, the number to be included will be a POV issue. A list of high points in Monroe County, Florida would be less problematic, since the length of the list would only depend of the editor's stamina. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 15 March 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:NBA player with no awards or highlights
- 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) 12:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:NBA player with no awards or highlights to Category:Basketball player with no awards or highlights
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The template is now used for all basketball players not for NBA players only. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 08:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When did we start categorizing by what a person is not? I thought this was listed somewhere but WP:OC#TRIVIAL seems to also apply. Also, isn't highlights ambiguous?Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this category is silly. No need to categorize players in this way. And yes, I get that it's a maintenance category. It is perfectly valid for some/many players not to have notable career achievements that need to be added to their infoboxes. Rikster2 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - terrible concept for a category and sort of insulting to the players. Lack of a property is usually not notable. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – This is essentially WP:OR research anyway. Can't believe this category has lasted this long without being deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though it should be pointed out that this was clearly intended as a maintenance category based on infoboxes and not as a category for grouping unremarkable NBA players. However, as Rikster2 points out, that just means that the category is merely useless instead of utterly ridiculous. Pichpich (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OC#TRIVIAL. By they way, can I request that the Template:Infobox basketball biography be fixed to address this issue? I'm not well versed in Template magic.--Lenticel (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it was a tracking category which is no longer being used as far as I can tell. I will remove it from the template (it can still be tracked using what links to "Template:Infobox_basketball_biography/awards_highlights_undef_empty", which is the method being used for other parameters in this template). Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - silly and unnecessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I do not think we like negative or "other" categories, which is what this seems to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 15 March 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:Art by P J Crook
- 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) 12:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Art by P J Crook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This only has one subcat and is the subcat of another cat (itself nominated for CfD) which contains the same subcat--why does this scheme exist...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I won't presume the outcome of the other nomination but, even with the current category structure, this one isn't grouping anything. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – this is getting silly. Oculi (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - category seems to be part of some WP:POINT exercise whose creator only seems capable of defending with ad hominem commentary... not the first time, either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Works by P J Crook and merge in all subcategories. We only need one categoriy for him, with the article on his as its main article. The content is largely images not articles anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response But that would break the scheme of Category:Album covers by author--why would we do that? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:57, 15 March 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:P J Crook
- 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) 12:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:P J Crook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant version of Category:P. J. Crook--which is nominated earlier. Note that that category was emptied out of process and this one was created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) with the following rationale: "Insofar as WP editors are not morons, the discussion of the idiotic discussion of the misnamed category can be applied here, so no duplicate CfD lunacy appears here." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Koavf still doesn't demonstrate having read, remembered, and being able to rewrite in his own words the salient proposition from the lede, namely
- the artist's name is "P J Crook", not "P. J. Crook".
- I would wish that another editor would let the discussion at the misnamed cat "P. J. Crook" (sic.) conclude and then apply that conclusion here. To spell it out, wishfully for Koafv, if that discussion concludes that the misnamed category can stay, then save this correctly named category and kill that abomination, which is now empty, per my competence; if that discussion concludes that the misnamed category should be deleted, then delete both, obviously.
- Regardless, we should not have a category with the erroneous periods. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – there is (so far) exactly 1 valid category for PJC, namely Category:Album covers by P J Crook. Oculi (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As already noted, this category serves no purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not, as a further application of your argument, delete yourself. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes—can we agree not attack other editors in these discussions? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is unusual. It's a duplicate of Category:P. J. Crook which itself is up for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- WE need just one category for him, which I am suggesting should be "Works by PJC". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:22, 15 March 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:Ice Hockey European Championships
- 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. — ξxplicit 22:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Ice Hockey European Championships to Category:IIHF Ice Hockey European Championships
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Excessively generic name will result in miscategorization of any European ice hockey championships here. This is the IIHF championship named "Ice Hockey European Championships", so should be indicated as such. There are other European ice hockey championships. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The main article is at Ice Hockey European Championships. If the IP wants this category to be renamed, than xe should propose that the main article to be moved first via requested moves. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From CFDs here, categories are frequently named in a manner that is less ambiguous than the main articles, because categories require maintenance. Excessively generic category names just result in unrelated material being categorized together. There are championships for European ice hockey that do not involve the event described at Ice Hockey European Championships, so ambiguity is excessive in a title that can be seen as simply descriptive. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment we have article on the European women's ice hockey championship as well. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and other European championships in ice hockey, like the club championships found at European Cup (ice hockey). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of the European Cup (ice hockey) there should be no confusion, as this doesn't event contains the word "Championship" in the name. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But they are literally Ice Hockey European Championships, thus eligible for categorization here, if you interpret the category as a generic category grouping all championships of ice hockey for Europe. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the category was called Category:IIHF Men's European Championships until recently, when it was renamed without discussion overiding an objection with a comment "w/d" (withdraw), so this is atleast odd, since a "withdraw" usually means it was not done. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Category:IIHF Men's European Championships contained only one relevant article, the others were world championship and Olympic tournament articles. They had to be removed from the category. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article Ice Hockey European Championships states that the European Championships were held as part of the World and Olympic tournaments. And your subcategory Category:Women's European Ice Hockey Championships is two different championships, unrelated to this one (already showing that the generic title is gathering unrelated championships, which you yourself added). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: The women's category has subsequently been renamed, split the two womens championships into different categories. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- In that case the yearly Ice Hockey European Championship articles should be placed in the relevant World and Olympic categories, and not vice-versa. There also examples which justify placing Category:Women's European Ice Hockey Championships in this category. For example Category:EuroBasket Women is placed in Category:EuroBasket, but I don't think you would propose to rename the latter category to Category:EuroBasket Men. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With this case, I don't think the women's championship is a subtopic of hte men's championship, instead it is a separate championship, and they should not be categorized together. In this case, you categorized a women's club championship and a women's nations championship with this men's nations championship, so the category name is clearly overly ambiguous. From a plain English reading of the category name, it would become a bag of unrelated championships that cover ice hockey in Europe, and there are several for men's club championships. 70.49.126.147 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:hockey has been informed of the rename discussion. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:IIHF Ice Hockey European Championships - The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 22 March 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.