From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4

My Life as a Teenage Robot video 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: delete (note: while closing the category had already been emptied) ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages, both of which are entries in the larger "Nicktoons" line of video games and not based solely on My Life as a Teenage Robot. Recommend upmerge to Category:My Life as a Teenage Robot. Cyberlink420 ( talk) 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the series has no spin-offs other than some crossover games, then there is no purpose for a spin-off category. Dimadick ( talk) 05:10, 7 August 2021 (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.

Schools of the University of Southern California

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 on Category:Centers of the University of Southern California, split Category:Academics of the University of Southern California ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main article University of Southern California refers to its departments as schools. The "Centers" category seems to be a matter of WP :SHAREDNAME. The "Academics" category is easily misunderstood, as this word normally refers to people. Note: I have not proposed to merge Category:Institutes of the University of Southern California, since that one has various other parents. – Fayenatic London 17:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Clicking through the articles, the nominator's suggestion seem like better descriptors. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge the centers category to Category:University of Southern California, I do not think we have enough to justify a seperate category in that case. In the case of the acedemics cateogry, move the articles on faculty members to Category:University of Southern California faculty sin ce it a-exists and b-is our standard for how we class American faculty/people who are academics/professors/whatever you want to call them. I do not think there are enough sub-divisions of the University of California for which we have articles to make it needful to have a seperate category for such, we can just place things in the general cateogry by the name of the place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment while USC has more such divisions than BYU, It is something like 14 as opposed to at most 22, but BYU has had 17 or so total through its history, and we have articles on some that no longer exist. So I think that Category:Brigham Young University direxctly contains such shows such a division is doable. Actually, BYU has I believe 14 colleges, some of which are sometimes called schools. It also has at least 3 sub-divisions of colleges that are named schools (family life and social work under the College of Home, Family and Social Sciences, and music under the College of Fine and Performing Arts, there may be others though). Departments are sub-divisions of colleges and schools. For example the College of Home, Family and Social Sciences which I studied in has departments of history, economics, policial science, anthropology, the school of social work, the school of family life, a department specifically set up to administer the American Heritage course that is a mixture of ecnomics, history and political science, and probably some other departments that I am forgetting. The College of Humanities has departments of English language and literature, linguistics, Germanic Languages, Itlian and French, Spanish and Portuguese, Asian and Near Eastern Languages, and maybe some others. OK, I gave in and looked it up, HFSS also has geography, sociology, neuroscience and psychology. Humanities actually calls it German and Russian, it also has philosophy and comparative arts and letters. It gets more fun, the College of Engineering is subdivided into programs not departments, at least in their public facing literature. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose 1st rename, support 2nd split. I'm tapping a bit from my own experience here, since this is my alma mater. In general a "center" at an American research institution is not synonymous with a "school" or "college," and certainly not at USC. Centers are administered by schools and fall under their umbrella, but are not actually schools themselves. For instance, the USC Jane Goodall Research Center is administered by the department of anthropology, which is part of the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, but it would be erroneous to say the center itself is a school or a college. Other times, centers may be interdisciplinary, like Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, which is administered by the Cinema, Engineering, and Journalism school. Again, it's run by the schools but represents its own separate entity.
As for the academics category, it does look like a mishmash of faculty and schools, and would be better off being split into better categories. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose 1st rename, support 2nd split - defer to Bibliomaniac15 on the 1st. The second is ambiguous as we have the people category Category:Academics. Oculi ( talk) 18:35, 4 August 2021 (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 pre-indepdendence "Mexico" categories

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 old names will be redirected to aid navigation and discourage re-creation. This nomination does not explain why it starts from year 1789, so perhaps John Pack Lambert, Dimadick or Rathfelder may wish to make further nominations for Category:1780s establishments in Mexico and earlier. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 8 September 2021 (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.

1814 and following pre-indepdence establishments in "Mexico"

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 old names will be redirected to aid navigation and discourage re-creation. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Category:1814 establishments in Mexico to Category:1814 establishments in New Spain
  • Merge Category:1816 establishments in Mexico to Category:1816 establishments in New Spain
  • Merge Category:1817 establishments in Mexico to Category:1817 establishments in New Spain
  • Merge Category:1818 establishments in Mexico to Category:1818 establishments in New Spain
  • Merge Category:1819 establishments in Mexico to Category:1819 establishments in New Spain
  • Merge Category:1820 establishments in Mexico to Category:1820 establishments in New Spain
  • Nominator's rationale This is not a supportable set of categories. Yes, there is a "Mexico" in these years, but it clearly did not include almost all of what is actually in these categories. Of these 6 categories, all except 1819 only have the Alta California sub-category. Alta California is not in modern Mexico, and it was not in Mexico as the term was used pre-1821. Yes, there was a revolution going on, but what name it would have used for its proposed polity is unclear, it had no power in Alta California anyway, and for much of this time looked like it would be defeated. The one other item would fit Mexico's definition at the time, but I would say it is too narrow to be worth using. In the article Name of Mexico we learn "In 1821, the continental part of New Spain seceded from Spain during the Trienio Liberal, in which Agustin de Iturbide marched triumphantly with his Army of the Three Guarantees (religion, independence, and unity). This was followed by the birth of the short-lived First Mexican Empire that used the "Mexico" name according to the convention used previously by Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Romanum) and the Holy Roman Empire, whereby the capital gives rise to the name of the Empire. This was the first recorded use of "Mexico" as a country title." the paragraph before tells us "Under the Spaniards, Mexico was both the name of the capital and its sphere of influence, most of which exists as Greater Mexico City and the State of Mexico. Some parts of Puebla, Morelos and Hidalgo were also part of Spanish-era Mexico." This strongly suggests that we should not use Mexico for anything pre-1821. All the more so because if we look under First Mexican Empire we see that this entity not only claims a huge swath into what is now the United States (although effective control did not exist in Utah or Nevada, or about half of Arizona, pre-1848 in the Cache Valley of Utah some had asserted it was British terrtory, and their claims were never effectively challenges, although there was no effective British administration that south, just agents of the Fur Trade Companies), but the Mexican Empire also controlled all of Central America except Panama. The way this category is being used does not work at all, it applies the use of a term in 1830 before it ever exists, and treats the state of the world in 1830 as a de facto right way to organize things, we just should not be categorizing in this way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support New Spain covers the entire period until 1821. By the way the de facto control extends to the Spanish Empire in general. It claimed several areas of the Americas that were not properly colonized or were actually sparsely populated. Dimadick ( talk) 05:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I suspect such is not going to matter for this category structure much though. Not many lasting institutions that we have articles on were established in areas beyond the effective control of the Spanish Empire but in its claims zone. The one possible exemption may be things established by agents of other European powers in areas the Spanish claimed. For example the early French fort in Texas would best go under the French colonial empire structure, not the Spanish Empire one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom to remove ahistorical category. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (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:Wikipedia books (books with errors)

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/merge (note: in this case delete and merge coincide) ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary extra layer after Category:Wikipedia books (community books with errors) was deleted. See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_181#Delete_all_books_within_the_book_namespace. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:04, 4 August 2021 (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:Disproven exoplanets

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A rename proposal for Category:Disproved conjectures to Category:Disproven conjectures was rejected, so it makes sense to rename this page for consistency. No other category names begin with Disproved or Disproven, so C2C does not apply. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Oppose. Disproven sounds more fluent to me. There is only 1 other comparison category, and it is in a different topic area. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Isn't this a case of WP:ENGVAR? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 5 August 2021 (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:Hinduism in Lahore

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'. – Fayenatic London 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article and one subcategory in the category. The article should be moved to parents Category:Religion in Lahore and Category:Hinduism in Punjab, Pakistan, the subcategory is already elsewhere in those trees. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This is a topic category about Hindu religion in Lahore, not a set category for Hindu people from Lahore. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Shardha Ram Phillauri isn't just a Hindu from Lahore but an influential figure in modern Hinduism who spent time in Lahore. VR talk 04:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Still, it is not a topic article about Hindu religion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am thinking we need to have a category that identifies that Shardha Ram Phillauri lived in an undifferentiated pre-particion Punjab, the current categorization makes it seem he operated in the much smaller post-1962 Punjab, India, even smaller than the earlier East Punjab, which was divided further later on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:52, 4 August 2021 (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:Deaths in July 2021

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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I mistook pages in a category (2021 Deaths) as subcategories and created this category but no other death by year category does this. DemonStalker ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to parent Category:2021 deaths (eg Biz Markie is not otherwise in '2021 deaths'). Oculi ( talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:2021 deaths. Year of death is precise enough. Yes, it creates large categories, but lots of people we lack an exact death date, and short form is to often just list years of birth and death, not always month or date. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:2021 deaths. We do not categorize deaths by months. Months-related categories typically only contain events that occurred in the month. Dimadick ( talk) 05:23, 7 August 2021 (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/2021_August_4&oldid=1043770953"