From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7

Category:Television series created by Barbara Hall (TV producer)

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: relisting for further discussion on current daylog. This is never going to be resolved if it just lingers here on a weeks-old CFD page attracting no new input. Bearcat ( talk) 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a common sense move because the disambiguator isn't necessary here. It's obvious from the context "television series created by..." that it's referring to a TV producer and not anyone else listed at Barbara Hall. See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 18#Category:Television series created by Dan Schneider -- Tavix ( talk) 22:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – it is much more straightforward simply to use the same format as the article rather than agonising over whether any other Barbara Halls might have created TV series. Oculi ( talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Not sure why there'd be any agony over it. A category redirect from the current title should solve any confusion. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Renaming the other way (to match the article) satisfies the speedy criterion C2D: WP:CFDS. Eg Category:Compositions_by_Don_Davis is at present a speedy in exactly the opposite direction. One thinks something is at last sorted out and then confusion is introduced. Oculi ( talk) 11:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Don Davis is a different situation. There are several Don Davis' who worked in that field, so the disambiguator is necessary there. In this case, you're not going to see "Television series created by Barbara Hall" and think "Hmm, I wonder if these series were created by the politician, the crossword puzzle editor, or the TV producer." It's obvious by the context that we're referring to the TV producer. There's no need to be redundant with the additional disambiguator at the end. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • REname -- While it is desirable for categories to match articles. Barbara Hall is a dabpage, also leading to a Canadian politician and a crossword editor, neither of whom is likely to have created TV series. Accordingly an exception can be made and the fact that this relates to Barbara Hall (TV producer) can be relegated to the headnote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per the reasons covered by Peterkingiron. Dimadick ( talk) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Do not rename. I can see the nominator's point that this is not a big deal, but I do prefer to keep names within categories the same as the corresponding article name. This seems to be the general practice, even when the disambiguator does not serve to provide necessary disambiguation in the category the same way that it functions in article space. And Oculi is correct that this is the type of change (adding the disambiguator to the category) that would be routinely approved at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The main article of the category is Barbara Hall (TV producer). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:27, 8 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:Article Incubator articles by quality

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Article Incubator has been marked historical from March 2015 (after closing down from January 2014) so it is very unlikely that its quality assessments are being kept up to date or are useful to anybody. Note: Most of these categories are empty (or contain just 1 page) - this scheme has not been widely used. These categories currently place article talk pages in Category:Inactive project pages which says its for Wikipedia project namespace pages. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 7 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:Bien de Interés Cultural landmarks in the Province of Malaga

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 deleted. @ Rathfelder:, in the future, please tag this for WP:G7 instead. This should not be nominated for CFD. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Mistake Rathfelder ( talk) 21:18, 7 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:ISRO space probes

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, as this seems desirable in order to match the hierarchy Category:ISRO vehicles. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All the Indian space probes are sent by ISRO. No need of separate category, can be included in the target category. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- The fact that they are all ISRO probes can be covered in a headnote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge, NASA and ESA have their own category as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears there's consensus to merge, but not which way. More input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 21:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Reverse Merge This is one category. Neutral on target. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:40, 16 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:Roman colonies

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 to Category:Coloniae (Roman). The nomination changed mid-way through the discussion, so it is a little bit difficult to track. It would be helpful if users would strike the old nomination and add the new one so that we can easily see datestamps for the changes, etc. But after muddling through the sequence of events, there does seem to be a rough consensus here to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Colonia is the right name for it, pure and simple, the romans called it that, most of the pages call it that, yet the category calls it Roman colonies, Ideally it would be fixed as colonia is a better name, however the category has stood for a very, very long time, since 24th of October, 2004, almost 12 years ago, Because it is such an old category who's name has yet to change, I (at the suggestion of Safiel ( talk · contribs) brought it here.

PS: Ive changed the proposal from being renamed to Colonia to being renamed to Coloniae (Roman) in accordance with WP:C2D, and WP:CAT. Iazyges ( talk) 05:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose Category:Colonia, on the basis there are multiple uses for the word Colonia (see Colonia). After all, isn't colonia simply Latin for "colony"? This is the English language Wikipedia, after all. Sionk ( talk) 06:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Sionk: The proposal has changed, it is no longer to move it to colonia, but to Coloniae (Roman). Iazyges ( talk) 02:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply

And yet we have many castrum categories. Iazyges ( talk) 12:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – colonia is not in use in modern day English. Oculi ( talk) 11:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
And yet we have many categories using the word castrum, many others using latin. Iazyges ( talk) 12:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
On second thoughts, having looked up Colonia (Roman), the usage is somewhat different from the modern 'colony' and so 'Roman colonia' might be an option (in which case all the names in Category:Colonies in antiquity should be changed). Of course the biological categories use latin (eg Category:Lilium (Lily)) so one could argue that 'colonia' is the correct historical term. Oculi ( talk) 12:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: Hm I could definitely see that as being better, Oculi ( talk · contribs) has mentioned It being Roman colonia, which do you think is better? Iazyges ( talk) 20:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
We try to have category names following article names. I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't do that in this case. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I think it should be 'Roman coloniae' or 'Coloniae (Roman)' as colonia is singular. Using the article name is a sound idea. Oculi ( talk) 20:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle:, @ Oculi:, I have changed the rename proposal to Colonia (Roman). Iazyges ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, "A Roman colonia (plural coloniae) was originally a Roman outpost". Coloniae. Oculi ( talk) 22:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Oculi:, @ Marcocapelle:, I have changed the proposal to coloniae (Roman) in accordance with both of your suggestions, and WP:C2D, and WP:CAT. Iazyges ( talk) 02:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Ibadibam:, @ Sionk: (Pinging to notify that the proposal has changed.) Iazyges ( talk) 02:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Support Category:Coloniae (Roman). Oculi ( talk) 10:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Oculi ( talk · contribs) If you support it remove add it as its own Support. Iazyges ( talk) 20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Category:Coloniae (Roman). While in theory the same, colonia has a different meaning from the modern term colony. Coloniae is the correct plural. A Roman soldier (upon discharge) was granted citizenship (of Rome), but would in practice settle in a provincial town with the status of a colonia. These were internally self-governing cities. This differs from Greek colonies which were founded by emigrants from Greece, for example because their city was overpopulated. British, French and Spanish colonisation was more similar to the Greek process than the Roman. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose This is the English Wikipedia, we use English words. Yes, Roman colonies are not like the term at other times, but that is understood in the category, and making the category foreign in its name will not change this at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In fact JPL has a point here, although colonies would not be right here as it concerns cities rather than colonies. An alternative solution which may be acceptable to both sides is to diffuse this category to Category:Roman towns and cities by country. There is not so much benefit in collecting 'outposts' if these cities are categorized by country anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 14 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_7&oldid=1138410463"