- 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) (t · c) buidhe 12:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Limba is a disambiguation page: this is about the Limba people and Limba language in Cameron, but there is also a Limba people and Limba language in Sierra Leone. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 23 June 2020 (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:North East Delhi Residential Colonies
[edit]
Category:Delhi residential colonies
[edit]
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Category:Delhi residential 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, WP:C2D disambiguation per Twitch (service), opposed on Speedy page on the grounds that there are no other categories making use of the word. I've suggested similar exceptions myself in the past, but these have always been overruled by the weight of precedents. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and consensus at a multitude of cfds, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. Oculi (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator and per consensus at many CFDs over many years, that a category name should be the article name, or less ambiguous than the article name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose - There is absolutely no competition for the category name "Twitch" (see Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Twitch), that adding a disambiguator is pedantic, less concise, and unnecessary as there is currently no ambiguity. C2D has gone overboard. --Netoholic @ 17:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. The main article is Twitch (service). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:37, 24 June 2020 (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:Owned-and-operated television stations in the United States
[edit]
- 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. bibliomaniac15 02:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Not needed when there are categories for each group; want to avoid category bloat Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It's a valid container category; I'll go ahead and mark it as such. We could perhaps rename it to Category:Owned-and-operated television stations in the United States by network to clarify its scope although that would break the logical progression of the categorization tree. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a container category, which subcategory should KFTR-DT be in? Also some of the owned-and-operated categories are defined as including affiliates, and others are subcategories of affiliates, but the articles Owned-and-operated station and Network affiliate say they are different. Peter James (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- O&O is a type of affiliation. Ideally, KFTR-DT would be put in Category:UniMás owned-and-operated television stations in the United States (working title), a category that would need to be split from and made a subcategory of Category:UniMás network affiliates. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is distinct from affiliation according to both articles - how can it have one definition in the article namespace and another in categories? Peter James (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As the network affiliate article correctly states, "[n]otwithstanding this distinction, it is common (...) to refer to any station, O&O or otherwise, that carries a particular network's programming as an affiliate." Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if owned-and-operated has a defined meaning, perhaps it should be in capital letters. Otherwise, I suppose that nearly every tv station is owned by someone and operated by someone. For a container category it sure seems to have articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase has a meaning more specific than the combination of words, but only in the same way that "non-profit" doesn't just mean "not profitable". Peter James (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Icterus
Category:Faculty by university or college in Germany
[edit]
- 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: nomination withdrawn. bibliomaniac15 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: There was a discussion in February: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_5#Category:University_of_Rostock_faculty which was said to be a test case. At present we dont have a consistent policy. The word Faculty is used differently in different countries. Fakultäten, in German, refers to what might be called in the UK university departments or schools. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedurally: the intent of this nomination is clearly to rename all the subcats ... so the subcats should be listed in the nomination. This is about the third or fourth stage of a set of sneaky attempts to rename a set of categories without tagging and listing them, and Rathfelder should have gotten the message already: there's no short cut around consensus building, and nothing in the guidance on CFD or on consensus to support this notion that a "test case" nomination can create such a procedural short cut.
- Even if all the subcats were listed, doing this only for Germany is a very bad idea. It sets a precedent for a debate about the usage in each country, and with over 200 countries in the world, that will be a nightmare that will clog up CFD for months until the editors with any relevant knowledge give up in despair and decisions get made by default by whichever passer-by takes time to comment.
- Substantively, this approach is a breach of policy. The problem here is that this set of categories uses two terms ("faculty" and "academics"), each of which is ambiguous in all varieties of English: see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/academic and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faculty. Per MOS:COMMONALITY we shouldn't be arguing the toss over how to balance these nuances in each language and each variant of English; we should be seeking a common terminology which avoids ambiguity in all variants of English. Off the top of my head "Academic staff" seems like a possibly suitable term, but we need an RFC to examine all the possibilities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with BrownHairedGirl that this issue is not confined to Germany, and that the notion of test cases in this sort of situation is very unsatisfactory. "Academic staff" does indeed seem possible. However I am not confident that that an RFC will not turn into a debate about the usage in each country. We have tried that strategy before, for example with Organisations and Organizations, without much success. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are these the same concept? I assume that faculty are researchers & teachers; academics can have no teaching duties and could include administrators, think-tank members, and the sort. Do I misunderstand? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Academics" also has the meaning of "academic topics". And even among the "people who work in academia" sense, it could easily encompass for instance postdoctoral researchers, who are generally not listed in "faculty" categories. Unfortunately "professors" also does not work, especially not for the UK rank system. "Faculty members" might be less ambiguous. If we're going to aim for a foolish consistency, we might consider that we have a Wikipedia article on this very topic, whose title is yet another phrase, Academic personnel. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a separate category Category:Academic administrators. In practice neither academics nor faculty are very tightly defined, but I think generally would be taken to include research or teaching, or, usually, both. Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2020 (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:A Clockwork Orange
[edit]
- 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is a tentative nomination from the list described and linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Non-disambiguation categories with eponymous disambiguation page in article space. In other words, the current category name matches A Clockwork Orange which is a disambiguation page. This category lists articles that are associated with A Clockwork Orange (novel) in various ways, including Nadsat (fictional language featured in the book), Girl Loves Me (song partly using Nadsat), Herman Makkink (sculptor whose pre-existing works were prominently featured in the film of the novel). The suggested split would make the category more defined and more consistent with others, but the latter page at least would probably have to be removed. The existing association-based category is simple and may be useful for navigation as it is, so is it better to keep it? – Fayenatic London 11:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative oppose. I appreciate the thought that Fayenatic has applied to trying to resolve the clash between category and article titles. This pairing of Category:A Clockwork Orange with dab page A Clockwork Orange is quite a common type in the the list I created: the dab page is actually listing different aspects of the same topic, rather than separate topics. There are many other examples relating to creative works, and lots for the male/female split in US college sports (see e.g. Category:Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball / dab page Appalachian State Mountaineers basketball).
- In this case, the split proposed by FL doesn't seem to me to work well. There are some articles which should be in both the novel cats and works-based-on cat, and some more articles which may excluded altogether. Maybe there is something I have missed, but at this stage I am inclined to agree with FL's closing thought that maybe the status quo is the best way to categorise.
- However, that raises the question of whether the article-space pages are being handled correctly. For example, should some of them be Wikipedia:Set index articles?
- Note, I'm still a long way from a settled view on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another example Category:Kurhaus/ dab page Kurhaus. Isn't Kurhaus really a set index? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 23 June 2020 (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:House of Holland
[edit]
Category:Native birds of Southern Mexico
[edit]
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Category:Native birds of Southern 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: rename to Category:Goodwood estate. bibliomaniac15 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Goodwood is a disambiguation page, so the page title needs disambiguation. Goodwood, West Sussex redirects to Goodwood House, but the scope of this category is greater than the house and its grounds, so see it seems to me to better to use the broader title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Formal vote: alt rename to Category:Goodwood estate, West Sussex. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds OK in principle. But, @Marcocapelle, do we really need the "West Sussex"? Are there other Goodwood estates? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 26 June 2020 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Glyphis
Category:Glaucidium
[edit]
Category:Basselin Fellows
[edit]
Category:Fellows of the American Society for Cell Biology
[edit]
Category:Fortunella
[edit]
- 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. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming:
- Option A
- Option B
- Nominator's rationale: The bare title Fortunella is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Kumquat, and the scientific name Fortunella (plant) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 23 June 2020 (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.