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) 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Rationale updated'CN1 (
talk) 22:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories are named either "X terms" or "X terminology", but their content is - as far as I can see - the same, so is there actually a difference between these descriptions? Should we not choose one of them and apply to all subcategories? I have no strong favourite for either of these two, so what do you think? I got the idea from translating the descriptions into german and "terminology" and "term" are translated to two very different looking and sounding words which I think is bad for catgories of the same object.
CN1 (
talk) 22:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – as the main category is
Category:Terminology one could try a speedy rename of any subcat using 'terms'.
Oculi (
talk) 02:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support renaming from "Foo terms" to "Foo terminology", but procedurally oppose because the individual categories proposed for renaming should be tagged and listed. Note: There have been previous discussions about this (e.g.
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_22#Terms_to_terminology). DexDor(talk) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Note: "Magical terminology" might not be ideal wording. DexDor(talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Most subcategories are at "Terminology" already. This will require a nomination of not too many subcategories that still have "Terms" in it.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, subcategories have been tagged September 5, so the discussion should be closed September 12 at earliest.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency. (However if some day some of these categories are nominated for deletion I might support that too because neither 'term' nor 'terminology' is a defining characteristic of many of the articles.)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency per nomination.--
Atvica (
talk) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support consistency.
Hyacinth (
talk) 10:05, 22 September 2016 (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:Astronaut-politicians
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. –
FayenaticLondon 08:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection per
WP:TRIVIALCAT, as those people are primarily notable as astronauts.
Brandmeistertalk 13:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- WE have had a number of past discussions about politicians by previous career. My view is that previous career is very relevant. However in the past others have considered that it is a trivial intersection.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete trivial intersection on two career paths, a list might be keepable if the notability of the link can be established.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. While there are arguably some cases where the intersection of "politician" with "career that the person held before entering politics" constitutes a
WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right (albeit far fewer of those than some people seem to think there are), I've still never seen any credible evidence that this would be one of them — "astronaut-politicians" are not the subject of any
reliable source coverage about them as a class of thing, distinct from "nurse-politicians" or "actor-politicians" or "lawyer-politicians" or "cab driver-politicians". It's just an intersection of two distinct occupations with no inherent relationship to each other.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a trivial overlap category. While a few may have been propelled to fame from being astronauts that they then leveraged to being politicians, this is still just a trivial link with nothing defining about it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Astronauts tend to be famous. Famous people tend to get elected more easily. That middle hop makes this non-defining intersection in my book.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for now. There is an article
astronaut-politician, which suggests to me that this may be a "thing": it's true that astronauts have often leveraged their fame from being an astronaut into a political career, to an extent such that it may be a cultural phenomenon that is written about in secondary sources. I'm not 100% sold on my opinion about this, but also,
Category:American astronaut-politicians is not included in this nomination, and should be.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That still looks problematic to me.
Books generally don't appear to use that phrase and neither does
Google Scholar. Also, there is no broad precedent to categorize people by two unrelated occupations. In case of significant political career, they could be categorized separately as fooian politicians (similarly to many other people active in multiple areas).
Brandmeistertalk 20:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree that sources appear not to use the phrase, which makes the case weak. But if the category name is interpreted as a descriptive phrase rather than a formal title or commonly used name, there are sources that discuss the intersection: the second book in the google books search above, for instance. As I said, I'm not totally sold on my opinion. It's not clear to me though why we are not discussing the entire tree rather than just the head category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Good Olfactory. Like him, my opinion could change should
Astronaut-politician were to be deleted. --
Tavix(
talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (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:City University London
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) 18:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: City University London has changed its name to City, University of London from 1 September 2016
CJGC (
talk) 10:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The rationale is entirely correct, and I support the move in principle. However, there are 3 sub-categories which should have been renamed at the same time, and no reason is offer for excluding them. Consistency in category names is important ... so either rename all 4 together, or leave them as they are. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I have taken the liberty of adding the other 3 (and tagging all 4).
Oculi (
talk) 23:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Per
WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- When I read the nom, my immediate reaction was that the change implies it is part of the University of London; and that is just what the article says.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:16, 4 September 2016 (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:Society by nationality
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/merge. This discussion did not decide to change the format of the subcategories; they were not nominated.Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per actual content.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support wholeheartedly! There is a mixture of country and nationality in the Society tree, so an alternative idea would be to rename the category Society by country or nationality (see
Category:Music by country or nationality and
Category:Arts genres by country or nationality). The artificial separation of these two trees is confusing for everyone except those of us who participate actively in the "back room" of Wikipedia. Regular users understand that 'nationality' and 'country' are basically the same concept, pedantic distinctions aside. Let's merge these two trees once and for all!
giso6150 (
talk) 03:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC) ...
Marcocapelle, would you consider adding
Category:Culture by nationality to this proposal?
giso6150 (
talk) 03:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That would be a next step, yes. I haven't included the other one here because that one is slightly more complicated. Here it's entirely obvious that this is all by country.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- This clearly should go with country, not nationality.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
To me this is an issue of low priority. There is no ambiguity in the current names of the subcats, everyone will hopefully understand that French society is equivalent to Society of France. But if anyone else would bother about it and propose that as a next step, I would support it for consistency reasons.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Do not change It is not a low priority, it is the core of the problem since your nomination rationale only says rename "per actual content" but the subcategories are the exact opposite of what you say--they are all named in the nationality pattern. You need to nominate all of them with some valid reason or withdraw the nomination.
Hmains (
talk) 03:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
It is merely the names of the country subcats that are slightly ambiguous (just slightly), but the content is clearly about each respective country.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
It is not 'merely' anything--it is the heart of the matter. Withdraw the nomination and resubmit with a nomination that includes all the 200+ subcats.
Hmains (
talk) 03:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Apparently we disagree on this.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:42, 22 September 2016 (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:Liability
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.
Support, but in cases like this it may be better to create the separate categories and then take the original category to CFD. DexDor(talk) 05:40, 3 September 2016 (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:Ghanaian football personalities
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 category and recategorize articles when needed. (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:07, 10 September 2016 (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:Saut-al-falah-trust
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: Recently created category has one article, which does not currently mention the topic. It seems to be a "welfare trust" of some kind (based on
this edit which was later removed from the article. —
TAnthonyTalk 02:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for Now It doesn't currently aid navigation. If 5 articles every show up, we can reconsider.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete – a prerequisite is an article on the trust.
Oculi (
talk) 10:57, 2 September 2016 (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.