Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18

Category:Irish World War II flying aces

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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. MFIreland • ^Talk 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Category:World War II flying aces is completely subcatted by nationality, and Category:Irish flying aces by conflict. Occuli (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli, it's part of a categorization scheme. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the organized structures of its parent categories. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OC#SMALL as part of an accepted sub-categorization scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above and also there are a minimum of six articles that belong here. I would expect the rest to be created at some point List_of_World_War_II_aces_by_country#Ireland Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the nominator User:MFIreland is removing this category from the Paddy Finucane article. Similar to previous disruptive behaviour from this user. Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This will almost inevitably remain a small category, because the Republic was neutral, and any flying aces must have enlisted in foreign forces, usually British. However, it remains a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (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:Scientists in stochastics

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:Researchers in stochastics. Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scientists in stochastics to Category:Stochasticists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Object -- I am not sure that the target is a recognised English word, and even if it is, it is too obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions I suggest a rename, but to an English phrase, Stochastics researchers or at least "Researchers in stochastics". The in is iidomatic there, but not for the current title DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in favour of Category:Researchers in stochastics. The category is populated with people (presumably researchers), not stochastics subjects. Agree with DGG, "Researchers in stochastics" is idiomatic for "Researchers who research the the field of in stochastics". "Scientists in stochastics" is not what is said. I guess it would correspond to "Scientists who do science in the field of stochastics". People don't say that. Scientists research. Stage performers do science. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2011 (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:Former London and South Western railway stations

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. Courcelles 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former London and South Western railway stations to Category:Former London and South Western Railway stations

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The members of Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by former operator mostly (all?) have the word "Railway" with capital "R", because it is part of the proper name of the railway concerned. I created Category:Former London and South Western Railway stations according to that convention (the railway company being London and South Western Railway), not realising that Category:Former London and South Western railway stations already existed. I suppose that I should have checked first and then gone to WP:CFDS. Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per nom. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC) NB -- not watching here[reply]
Speedy merge per nom. (I think the lower case R might be an old typo of mine!) Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone close this? Speedy merge Simply south..... 15:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge (not reverse merge). The target has the correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2011 (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:Redirects to template from non-template namespace

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:

Result was withdrawn (non-admin close) Simply south...... 19:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Despite the {{Empty category}} tag on this category I propose to delete it, because there is no template which sorts into this category, so it is doomed to remain forever empty.

Please note that there was a notice on this category page saying "Pages are added to this category with {{R from other template}} or a variant thereof.", but since that was not true (and in addition, that template is itself being nominated for deletion), I removed that sentence. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose – It is true; you really should check these things. Pages are added to this category if they are not in the template namespace. If the categorising is not working, then it can be easily fixed, but that is not a reason to delete this category. This category is useful for grouping cross-namespace redirects. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and I am a template editor myself. You might have approached me about this on my talkpage, if you are so sure of it. So far you have not shown that I am wrong here. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be true and I apologise for assuming that it still was. I have responded to your comment on my talk page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. I think either way we will work something out here. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination, now that Template:R from other template‎ has been ammended to sort here. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2011 (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:Mammals of French Guinana

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:

Result was delete (Non-admin close) Simply south...... 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mammals of French Guinana to Category:Mammals of French Guiana

Nominator's rationale: Guiana misspelled Guinana. Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NM renaming, I corrected the only article in this category. Just delete the misspelled category. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge or delete, as misspelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; the category was already empty. Ucucha 17:01, 21 January 2011 (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:Mercury mines

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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mercury mines to Category:Mercury (element) mines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To clarify that the mines are of Mercury (element), not on Mercury (planet). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is your concern about confusion for mines on Mercury in Science Fiction novels? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Entirely unnecessary, unless evidence of mining on Mercury is provided. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The disambiguator is unnecessary. We do not even mine on the moon, let alone other planets. Clearly one does not mine in a Roman god either. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support to distinguish from mines for Hermes, the Greco-Roman god. (dedicated, named after, with a temple, etc) 65.93.13.210 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: I googled "Hermes mine" and there is a mining company in Australia and mine in Colorado that uses the name "Hermes". Everything else is about Hermès Paris. Can you point me to any examples of mines dedicated to Hermes, either inside our outside Wikipedia?RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Peter's right. No disambiguation is necessary as there can be no reasonable confusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disambiguation should, in principle, only be used when needed, and it's not needed here. (Maybe in a few hundred years' time it might, but WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply(!), and anyway, wouldn't that need to be Category:Mines on Mercury?) The only possible exception would be for standardisation, but as we don't have Category:Gold (element) mines, Category:Copper (element) mines, etc., that reason doesn't apply either. --RFBailey (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous comments. Disambiguation needs common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "oppose" over "support", but suggest serious consideration of the following: Rename to Category:Cinnabar mines. It is not mercury that is mined in any of the three articles categories, but the mineral Cinnabar. The cateogry is in the tree Category:Mines by mineral. Mercury is not a mineral in the strictly correct usage of the word. Cinnabar is the mineral, and is the only economically significant mineral containing mercury. Looking at Category:Mines by mineral, it should be divided by mineral mine, not by element derived from the minerals mined. Dividing mines by element is a little high-schoolish. Mines are built around the mining of a mineral, or an ore (an ore may contain multiple minerals). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2011 (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:D'Wort people

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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:D'Wort people to Category:Luxemburger Wort people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match article Luxemburger Wort. D'Wort redirects there and is a former name of the paper. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:57, 18 January 2011 (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:Mercury in fiction

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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mercury in fiction to Category:Mercury (planet) in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Mercury" is ambiguous, and I don't think that the category name here ("in fiction") is enough to disambiguate it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I looked on Amazon and a Hope Larson (not the one with the namesake article) has a novel called "Mercury" but alchemy seems to be the defining theme not the element. Everything else about the element seemed to be non-fiction. Are there fictional books about the element that I'm missing?RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mercury (element) in fiction or Quicksilver in fiction, and Mercury (god) in fiction are likely to be confused with this. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to correspond to title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The short story "Mercury" from The Periodic Table (book) is a good example of Category:Mercury (element) in fiction. Tassedethe (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (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:Nostalgia Critic films

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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category exists to tag articles reviewed by a particular critic. We do not create categories for critic's reviews; it is unworkable due to the sheer number of reviews, and also for the potential for appearing to highlight particular critics. Ckatz^chat _spy 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pointless category, unless, say, we were trying to promote the website... - SummerPhD (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy?) Due to promotion/advertising issue. Lugnuts (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly promotional and non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The films so tagged are not defined by their having been reviewed by a particular critic. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (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:IATSE

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: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IATSE to Category:International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest expanding abbreviation to match International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes. (According to the article, the last word is spelled incorrectly on purpose as an old-style spelling.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, rename to Category:International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees per their web site. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background: As the cat creator, I have no objection to spelling out the name. I used the acronym to avoid the frequent renames of the article between the spelling of "employees" versus "employes" and because I didn't think the common name was clear. Employes (1 E) seems to be the technical name, but Employees (2 Es) is widely used including on the website. The common name this organization is refered to in the industry is neither IATSE nor the spelled out name (however you spell it!) but "The IA". RevelationDirect (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expand abbreviation -- This is standard WP practice for categories, except a few very well known ones. The point is that unless you are in the industry, the abbreviation is gobbledegook. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To which spelling, though? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 24 January 2011 (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:Preserved machines

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: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was the subject of a previous discussion that started as a rename and ended with no consensus after the nominator change to a delete. After cleaning this up and removing some categories that are included from other categories we are left with 3 members. Two of these are already listed in the parent Category:Historic preservation by way of Category:Rail transport preservation. The other category is already better included in Category:Historic preservation by the better organized Category:Ships preserved in museums which avoids the ambiguously named current category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a legitimate parent category, which still has three members. I suspect that there ought to further subcategories, for example splitting stationery steam engines from locomotives. I do not think HMS Warrior or SS Great Britain are "preserved in museums": they are much too big to get inside a building with anything else. Alternatively upmerge to Category:Historic preservation (without a category redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your basic assumption that all museums have only indoor spaces is not correct. There are many types of outdoor museums including open-air museums. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category:Historic preserved machines or something similar. The current name is ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are ships and rolling stock really machines? While the engine of a ship appears to be a machine, the ship does not. With no power source, most rolling stock is not a machine. Box cars clearly do not fit, but reefers do have a compressor which is a machine but do not make the whole vehicle a machine, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (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.