< November 11 November 13 >

November 12

Category:Northwestern University School of Law faculty

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, but to Category:Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law faculty to preserve the lowercase "faculty". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the law school's name has changed, so should this category. We've already moved the main article. agtx 22:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's probably a good idea. The law school is on a separate physical campus and is a notable institution in and of itself. agtx 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me started on the name change, but it is what it is. agtx 14:34, 14 December 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:Gidget films and television productions

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. – Fayenatic London 16:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Gidget films and television productions to Category:Gidget
Nominator's rationale: Category name doesn't need to be that specific; also, many of the articles are about elements of the various Gidget productions, not the productions themselves. Trivialist (talk) 14:33, 12 November 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:Globalization-related organizations

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 to Category:International organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These organizations aren't related to globalization as such, they merely have global scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 12 November 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:People associated with peak oil

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. As noted, it might be easier here to just start from scratch, so this is without prejudice to a creation of an category for peak oil theorists or similar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. Peak oil is a term in Peak oil theory, it is the point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, so that is about science and economics and it's unclear how people can associate with this. At most we might have something like Category:Advocates of peak oil theory but then only few people will remain in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most people in this category have written about the future scarcity of oil but not specifically about the peak oil theory. The best descriptor I can think of, that would leave most people in this category, would be "Theorists on oil scarcity". Is that worth categorizing? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair compromise, still most people currently in this category will need to be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 13 November 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:Plants in popular culture

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 to Category:Plants in culture. However, as the only sub-cat is in Category:Bananas in culture which is in that one already, I will instead add it to the other parent, Category:Topics in popular culture. – Fayenatic London 17:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer with just a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 12 November 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.

Alberta provincial highway subcats

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 as proposed. (I've changed the first one to Category:Alberta provincial highways, 1–216 series to match Wikipedia style, since, as noted, this appears to be an issue of orthography rather than a difference in naming that carries any significance.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • potential split into Category:Alberta provincial highways, 500 sub-series and Category:Alberta provincial highways, 600 sub-series
  • potential split into Category:Alberta provincial highways, 700 sub-series and Category:Alberta provincial highways, 800 sub-series
Nominator's rationale: Highways in Alberta are no longer referred to as "primary highways". They are now "provincial highways". See Template talk:Alberta Provincial Highways#Yet another highway rebranding describing what has transpired (took over five years to get around to this after first being observed in early 2011). List of Alberta provincial highways#History describes the history of how Alberta's two highway series have been rebranded over time. Also, for the first entry, the " - " (space-dash-space) is intentional to align with List of Alberta provincial highways, which takes its lead from Alberta Transportation's primary and definitive sources, [1] and [2], for the two highway series. The NEW proposed renaming is another category found related to this topic that simply has capitalization errors. Hwy43 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have notified the creator of the article and the CanRoads and Alberta WikiProjects. Notices have also been placed at Talk:List of Alberta provincial highways and Template talk:Alberta Provincial Highways. Hwy43 (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, to be clear, are you therefore suggesting merging 500/600, 700/800 and 900 rather than the renaming and alternate splitting scenarios suggested above? It appears so, and coincidentally I've already created Category:Alberta provincial highways, 500 - 986 series as the umbrella category, which can become the targeted category for the merge you are suggesting. I would support that. Hwy43 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support merging all existing candidates to that new category, purging out all redirects. This should make a category of perhaps a dozen articles. If the 500+ series are anything like English B-class roads most are NN and have no articles, and should not have one. I suspect that the category creator hoped that all these would be created one day, but I hope not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have found no evidence of Alberta Transportation, or other reliable sources, ever disaggregating and publishing the 500 - 986 series of highways into three sets of sub-series (500/600, 700/800 and 900) or five sets of sub-series (500, 600, 700, 800 and 900), though I'd be pleased to review if such does exist. Without any confirmation that disaggregation into these sub-series exists, I have no opposition to merging all into a singular aggregated 500 - 986 series category to match Alberta Transportation's formal use of two series. It appears to me that creation of these sub-series at List of Alberta provincial highways and associated cats was a good faith attempt at organizing a significant amount of highways into digestible chunks. Also, I'm okay with leaving the category assignments on the redirect pages. Hwy43 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian, I'm prepared to create Category:Alberta provincial highways as a parent category to the two core series once there is an outcome of this discussion. It can be rolled into the implementation of the outcome. Category:Alberta provincial highways already exists as the parent category to the two series. Hwy43 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 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.
More