< July 31 August 2 >

August 1

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War

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, in spite of the awkwardness of the parenthetical disambiguator in some of these titles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given the American Civil War context, there can be no reasonable doubt that the U.S. state is the referent of "Georgia". The "(U.S. state)" disambiguator is unnecessary and awkward in this context, and therefore should be removed from these category titles. — Jaydiem (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kennethaw88: No one is claiming that the American Civil War was "exclusively domestic". The fact that there are articles about its relation to Prussia and Australia is no reason to disambiguate the name of one of the obvious belligerents from a relatively obscure area of the Caucasus that was politically a mere region of the Russian Empire at the time of the conflict. — Jaydiem (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @65.94.169.222: OK, let's consider "ethnic Georgians" then. Are there any actual, notable examples of "ethnic Georgians" being involved in any of the categories at issue here? Are there in fact any museums located in the Republic of Georgia that are dedicated to the American Civil War? If not, then there is nothing to disambiguate. — Jaydiem (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an article, it's a category. We name categories to be consistent with each other. The potential for confusion due to the Georgia issue is good enough to keep it this way. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @65.94.169.222: You didn't answer the question. Are there, or are there not, any notable examples—even one—of what you claim there could be "confusion" about? Find one, and you win the point; otherwise, your "potential for confusion" argument is mere hand-waving, completely without factual support. — Jaydiem (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not handwaving, it is how we handle potential ambiguity in category names; we look at potentials. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is even a speedy criterion for renaming subcats to follow the head category name, viz C2C. So the reverse of the suggested renames would be speediable. I don't find it even slightly ludicrous myself: decide on the main category name and use it throughout the tree without agonising at length and in detail about each individual twig. We do it for bands and their albums, members, songs etc, and for the various Georgias, and much else. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general rule is that all subcats of Category:Georgia (U.S. state) (such as the ones in the nom) will also use the format "Georgia (U.S. state)". It's really quite straightforward. Oculi (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: So this is a case of rigid-consistency-for-the-sake-of-easier-administraton trumping common sense, eh? *sigh* — Jaydiem (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, the standard is to still use (U.S. state) (see Category:1861 in Georgia (U.S. state)). Having such a short-lived entity doesn't justify creating a whole new category tree. As long as these are part of the Georgia (U.S. state) scheme (see comment above), there's no reason to change it. kennethaw88 • talk 23:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't your proposal, your proposal is to strip disambiguation. If you want to close and reopen the proposal for changing the disambiguator to C.S.A. or C.S. state, then you may find a different set of opinions coming up. And as to whether the disambiguator U.S. state is the right one, or C.S.-something would depend on interpretation, at the time some considered secession illegal, therefore, the state would still be part of the U.S.A. de jure. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2014 (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:2010 Tour de France cyclists

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. There is consensus to not retain these categories but upmerging is required to ensure that these articles are not removed from the event category trees altogether. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a really poor way of categorising cyclists. We should not create categories for non-defining characteristics, and I don't think that the specific year in which people rode in a Tour is a defining characteristic (although that the rode in the Tour in general would be). If the problem is that Category:Tour de France cyclists needs forking, I would suggest nationality would be a better way of handling this.
If this is kept it sets a weird precedent in my opinion; why end at just the Tour de France? Why not extend these to all three Grand Tours? In which case, most elite cyclists will ride 10+ of them in their career -- that's a huge amount of clutter on their pages. Hell, even if we do just keep it to the Tour, Alberto Contador has ridden 7. Lance Armstrong rode 13! That's an enormous amount of clutter.
The only other sporting events I'm aware of which fork like this are the Olympics and World Cups, both of which occur every 4 years which limits the clutter. I know of no other annual sporting event which is categorised like this. We already have lists which cover this topic by year, for the record: List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Tour de France, et al. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2014 (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:Muslims by period

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 09:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category Muslims by period currently has only one childcat (namely, medieval) and no single articles. Besides it is not likely that the category Muslims by period will be expanded, since the amount of articles on Muslims in more recent times would be too much to categorize. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The container is more difficult for Islam because none of the four major periods as listed at History_of_Islam#Major_periods have their own article yet. Category:Jewish history by period is similarly threadbare, with the exception of its ancient history (which Islam does not have). The idea of the category is fine, but I'm dubious of its navigational benefit when the respective article base has not yet been written. SFB 16:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I can't find a guideline or essay (is there one?) but it's my understanding that our rule of thumb is a main article be possible -- not that it must currently exist. However, that may not be the shared view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I'm raising the point is that I think in more modern times people are categorized by religion to fewer extent. As a random example, in Category:20th-century American Episcopalians there are only 46 entries, that's a very low number! So in Christianity at a certain point in time there is a shift from classifying anybody with that religion to classifying only a subset of people (based on what criteria?). In the Muslim tree this problem doesn't exist, because (it seems) all Muslims in the Middle Ages have been classified as such, while none of the Muslims in Modern times are classified as such, which I think is a clearer way of classifying people by religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (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:Link notes

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:External link note templates. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Link notes to Category:Link note templates
Nominator's rationale: Consistency - AFAICS every other category for templates ends with the word "templates". DexDor (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposition of Sillyfolkboy. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2014 (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:Alpha Epsilon Pi brothers

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. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There has been a longstanding consensus at CFD that we delete categories that categorize bio articles by membership in a U.S. college fraternity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2014 (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:Magnolia Pictures 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_20#Category:Films_by_studio_or_distributor, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_13#Category:Millennium_Entertainment_films and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_15#Category:Drafthouse_Films_films. Magnolia Pictures is a film distributor, not a producer. We do not categorize films by distributor. Films have multiple distributors, depending on country/ territory and window/platform (incl. theatrical, home consumer, television, educational and online distributors) and this has therefore been judged to be non-WP:DEFINING. A well-maintained list already exists at the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2014 (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