From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 26 January 28 >

January 27

Category:Structures of the Tate galleries

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 to Category:Tate galleries. - Splash - tk 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category proposed for merging is for individual art galleries under the "Tate" institutional umbrella: e.g. Tate Britain, Tate Modern etc. The consensus at a previous CfD didn't like the use of simply "Tate" for this institution (despite the title of the main article on the topic) and preferred "Tate galleries", to disambiguate and to clarify that there are several Tate gallery buildings. As a result "Tate structures" was changed to "Structures of the Tate galleries", but this is needlessly clunky; "galleries" makes "structures" redundant. Now that the parent category is called "Tate galleries" it seems like the natural home for the articles on each of the individual galleries. Ham ( talk) 14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • merge per proposal. Mangoe ( talk) 17:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The present category name is not great, but the scope of the category is well worth retaining: the 5 different galleries run by the Tate. Mergeing them into the parent category will seem them lost in an assortment of other articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
My thinking was that the articles Tate, Tate Britain, Tate Liverpool, Tate Modern and Tate St Ives could have a space after the piping like so: [[Category:Tate| ]], so that they would appear at the top of the category apart from the other pages. (Not included at the top would be the page Barbara Hepworth Museum, despite it being in the present Category:Structures of the Tate galleries, as the Tate seems to consider the BHM to be a subsidiary of Tate St Ives – note the navigation menu of the Tate St Ives website.) Ham ( talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This is not an eeded subcategory. It also has a needlessly long name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (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:Tennis siblings

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. Courcelles 16:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is non-defining to the individual and wouldn't be mentioned in the lead of most of the articles. A similar category was deleted previously. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator and per precedent. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If these were articles on the siblings as a group it might work, but these are articles on the individuals and thus this is a bad way to categorize the articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:35, 30 January 2014 (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:Military occupations

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: I do give some weight to the comments by Seyasirt, and agree that 'differently bad' is not good enough. Also, DexDor is correct as to the usual use of the category name towards content rather than meaning. For that reason, it is tempting to declare no consensus and force the debate to continue until some way forward somewhere is found, no matter how narrow. However, I think we can do better than that this time. This time, there is evident consensus to do something, and indeed most people are fine with the nomination, so the question is: what, if anything, can be seen as an all-round agreeable outcome from this debate as to precise naming given the genuine and reasonable concerns raised? Therefore, I will assume that the early commenters are in probability likely to be OK with a renaming that is close enough to the nomination, even though not identical. I observe that the nominator has some agreement with those who disagree with the original proposal, and makes a proposal close to the two dissenting editors' suggestions but which has the benefit of providing ENGVAR flexibility built-in for the potential subcats. Thus, I conclude to RENAME ALL per Fayenatic london's suggestion, that being as follows:
and recommend that checking of membership is subsequently needed. Also note that the targets are all red links, so if this really cannot be OK, then we can undo it easily enough. Splash - tk 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "occupation" is ambiguous, referring either to a career role or to the occupation of territory. The page Military occupation is about the latter. It is desirable to move Category:Military occupations to something unambiguous. The lead article has been moved to Military careers, but in my view that is not the best name because Category:Military careers is well-named to hold pages on the military careers of individual officers. There was no consensus on a wholesale proposal at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7, and therefore I am proposing just this step, along with selected sub-categories. The proposal fits with existing sub-categories Category:United States Army job titles‎, Category:United States Coast Guard job titles‎ and Category:United States Navy job titles‎. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note: "Military service occupations" would fit with some other sub-categories, but this was rejected as ambiguous at Talk:Military careers. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support Thanks, Fayenatic, for taking this on. It was apparently too knotty a problem to solve all in one CfD, but this is a good first step. -- BDD ( talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom. This is an excellent first step to resolving he problems that the prev CFD couldn't unravel. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support. I believe that this addresses my concerns with the previous proposals and alternatives. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. A job title is the words used to describe someone's role - e.g. "Director of Marketing Department", "Deputy Base Commander" or "Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht". Articles like Armourer and Fighter pilot are about a role, not about a term used (in English) to refer to that role. I.e. the title of the article may be a job title, but the topic of the article is the job itself. How about "Military professions", "Military jobs", "Military specialisms" or "Military trades" ? DexDor ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename, but not this one I have the same reservations as DexDor: some of the members are titles of positions, but most are not. I also note that the US Army code is " Military Occupational Specialty code". Perhaps we could go with Category:Military specialties given that this one of the more common elements in the names of these terms; or "trades" might also work given that this seems to be the usual British term. It also might make sense to split these into separate "positions" and "specialties/trades" categories. Seyasirt ( talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I would also add that the split would held resolve some of the national splitting since the positions are more nation-specific (and even branch-specific) than the trade/specialties, which tend to be universal. Seyasirt ( talk) 13:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Seyasirt: Please don't let the best be the enemy of the good. "Military job titles" is a little clunky, but it avoids the appalling ambiguity of "military occupations". If we can agree something less clunky, that'd be great ... but it would terrible to retain the current ambiguous title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
"Job titles" and "occupations/specialties/trades" are not of the same ilk any more than attorney general is of the same class as paralegal. I agree that "occupations" is a problem, but "job titles" isn't just clunky; it's incorrect for a large part of the current membership. If we are going to rename this we need to use a name that isn't simply differently bad. My thought is that we need to split this up because some of the members are specific positions/titles/ranks and some are specific occupations/trades/specialties. It seems to me that one of the latter terms ought to suffice for the "job type" articles; we shouldn't mislabel those as titles simply because "occupation" is a problem. Seyasirt ( talk) 19:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks; I have no objection to the alternatives proposed. Indeed, they would be better for some members which cover whole corps or professions. I lean towards Category:Military specialisms; is this more neutral than "specialties" in terms of WP:ENGVAR? We could use local terms anyway for national sub-cats, in particular "United States military specialties" for the US. As for members that are positions/titles/ranks, they should probably be within the Category:Military ranks hierarchy rather than this one. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I had envisaged that "job titles" would be a parent category over "ranks" as well, but if we go with one of DexDor's or Seyasirt's suggestions, these would stay as sibling categories alongside the relevant national "ranks" categories. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support Renaming on the basis of confusion with military occupation. Neutral on choice of where to put it, but strongly hoping for a consensus on this issue-- Lineagegeek ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (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.

Yugoslav collaborators with Nazi Germany

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. - Splash - tk 22:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: This category tree is supposed to be about nationalities, the nationality of all these people was Yugoslav Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Why bother, i.e. why not simply demote them to a category underneath Yugoslav collaborators? Do we have too many corner cases where more than one ethnicity applies? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - In period April 1941- November 1943 there was no Yugoslavia, except exiled government and its army. Even after 1943 it is questionable if people who lived there had Yugoslav nationality. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support The dissolution of Yugoslavia was never recognized in an international setting. It is time for us to end anachronistic attempts to impose post-1990 nationalities on people who lived in the 1940s. That is what these really are. We categorize by nationality in the sense of being connected with a political entity. That is why we have categories for Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire and many others. Yugoslav is the best way to define these people and avoids the complex issues of trying to figure out how to describe people of one ethnicity who lived in the political territories theoretically linked to another. These people were Yugoslavs by nationality. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the NDH (which was a temporary successor state to Yugoslavia) was recognized internationally: by Axis Countries, plus Spain, Switzerland, and the Vatican. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply
So that's the Axis, a nation with strong Axis sympathies, and two nations entirely surrounded by Axis countries? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:14, 5 February 2014 (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:Live Music Archive artists

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.(PS I forgot to add the closing tags earlier).- Splash - tk 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Recordings may stored in many places, and it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an artist that their work is archived in a particular place or by a particular organisation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:06, 3 February 2014 (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:Beyoncé Knowles

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 WP:C2D. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Beyoncé Knowles has been moved to Beyoncé. All subcategories except one are also affected. Adabow ( talk) 06:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
All the subcategories need to be nominated. These can be nominated for speedy renaming. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I nominated the subcategories at WP:CFDS. Mayast ( talk) 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Adabow ( talk) 04:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I also added it at WP:CFDS (to clarify, I nominated the main category Beyoncé Knowles for speedy renaming, and its subcategories were already moved earlier today). Mayast ( talk) 21:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The rename was turned down 8 times before being put through. I am not convinced that this is widely used enough. Even the person who proposed the rename admitted that Beyoncé Knowles and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter are also used to refer to her. I am not convinced the mononym is common enough to justify the rename. In this case it seems a response to temporary trends, as opposed to looking at the sum total of all evidence on the topic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Johnpacklambert: As Adabow already mentioned, a consensus has been made to move the main article for this category to Beyoncé, so this category needs to be renamed accordingly (just like its multiple subcategories, eg. Beyoncé albums). I suppose it was turned down 8 times in the past, because at the time of those nominations there article was still titled "Beyoncé Knowles". Mayast ( talk) 21:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support as speedy. John, yours is an argument for RM, not CfD. -- BDD ( talk) 21:53, 30 January 2014 (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.

Australian soccer managers

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 ALL. - Splash - tk 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. -- BDD ( talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all - FYI, 'coach' and 'head coach' are not the same, and it looks like 'head coach' and 'manager' are used interchangeably to describe the same job, such as [7] and [8]. I do not currently see compelling evidence that we need to change. Giant Snowman 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - the WP consensus is for Manager not Coach, per BHG at this discussion. This overrides local idiosyncracies around naming. Fenix down ( talk) 10:23, 30 January 2014 (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:South Melbourne FC managers

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. - Splash - tk 23:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Category:South Melbourne FC managers to Category:South Melbourne FC coaches – the club uses the terminology "coach". Manager is rarely used in this context in Australian sport. Hack ( talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The parent is Category:Soccer managers in Australia by club, and all its subcats use the word "managers". Either rename them all or keep them all is; no reason is offered for singling out this one. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, so you're saying you're supporting an incorrect usage because other categories are also wrong? Hack ( talk) 05:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
      I am saying that I will not assess whether the suggested change has a valid or invalid reason unless all the relevant categories are treated in the same way. Consistency of category names is important to allow readers to navigate with ease, and editors to categorise pages effectively. No reason was offered in this case for breaching consistency. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The current convention is for manager, not coach. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. -- BDD ( talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per rationale above. Giant Snowman 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - the WP consensus is for Manager not Coach, per BHG. This overrides local idiosyncracies around naming. Fenix down ( talk) 10:22, 30 January 2014 (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:Appearance(s) made by Sam Sparro on a work that is not his own

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. - Splash - tk 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. Such categories lead to clutter and the content is best displayed by a discography page. Pichpich ( talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Most musical recordings include session musicians, band members, or guests. Categorising recordings by everyone who took part would lead to massive category clutter. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Pichpich and BHG. See also the CfD for the similarly themed but oddly named Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again from 4 years ago. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, it was just an idea I had for organizing the articles, and it was obviously a bad one. I didn't realize it was against any rules or anything. I made it, is it possible for me to just delete the thing myself? -- LurganShmith ( talk) 22:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't think I've seen G7 applied to categories, but I don't see why it couldn't be. -- BDD ( talk) 22:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
It has been used in the past. However when it is populated it is questionable as a speedy delete. Just because the author has decided it is no longer a good option does not mean that others will not see a valid use. Now if the author agrees with the delete and there is no opposition, then WP:SNOW comes into play. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Or the discussion can just run its course. There is no deadline :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a horribly named article, what is defined as a work being "someone's own"? It also inherently is a case of categorizing works by a connection to a person whose connection is by it not being enough for him to "own" it, is admitted to be inherently non-defining. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_27&oldid=1136102576"