< September 4 September 6 >

September 5

Category:Macon Whoopee (CHL)

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) 05:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to all appropriate parents. Unnecessary eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 5 September 2017 (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.

IT, Computing and Digital infrastructure

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 the first, merge the second into it. Expanding the initialism in the category name can be dealt with under the condition that there is consensus to move the main article. ℯxplicit 04:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For whatever reason, the most common term, IT infrastructure (est. 127K gbooks hits) doesn't have an eponymous category, but the other two less popular terms do (digital infrastructure est. 13k gbooks hits and computing infrastructure est. 34k gbooks hits). We should normalize this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing real-world coverage and existing categorization (how ever sloppy) are indication enough that we shouldn't delete them but rather improve them, both in category and in main article space. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to links and redirects, Special:WhatLinksHere/IT infrastructure didn't reflect reality at the time of the original posting, so I went through the first 20 pages of https://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+%22IT+infrastructure%22 (it shows about 837 hits so there's actually much more), and wherever I bothered to click through I was able to link the term, adding dozens to the aforementioned tally. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fresh split to "Internet infrastructure", as suggested above, sounds potentially useful – but only if there is a satisfactory distinction from Category:Internet architecture which says that it currently covers this. (I have just added it as a sub-category of digital architecture.)
Disclosure: I swapped the order of the list in the nomination, to assist the closer to preserve the history of the older category. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be one of the very few exceptions where we may allow the acronym because it is a very strong "word" in everyday language, especially when used in compounds. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I named use the name including the abbreviation in the main article space because the expansion simply isn't nearly as common (est. 49K gbooks hits vs. aforementioned 127K). Also, IT has redirected there since 2013 without complaint, apparently. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you and Marcocapelle that "IT" is more common than "information technology" in everyday use ("IT infrastructure", "IT companies", "IT education", "IT people", "IT projects", etc.) but "IT" is ambiguous—hence, the main article is Information technology, the main category is Category:Information technology, and all subcategories use the unabbreviated form. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that explain e.g. Category:KFC or Category:CBS Television Network or whatever other term where the abbreviated form is already assumed to be a primary topic in main article space? In any event, I don't see why we should bother with such fine details of internal category-space consistency in this situation where the categories are already woefully inconsistent with reality. One problem at a time - let's fix this long-open sore, and then we can have a separate discussion on whether Category:Information technology should move to Category:IT. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the follow-up response. I see your point, to be sure, and I don't think "IT" is unreasonable. I just think, as you alluded, that we need to consider the broader context of the parent category. I have a slight preference for "Information technology" over "IT", but ultimately my main goal is just that we use one or the other consistently within the Category:Information technology category tree. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you used a pipe link there, [[It|IT]]. But while It is indeed ambiguous, IT has been split off from there in 2013, as I said before. So the apparent consensus it that IT is no more ambiguous than KFC or CBS etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In retrospect, I actually think I should follow my own advice and let this issue be resolved by using whatever spelling anyone thinks is currently necessary - it's already been a *month* and any further elaboration is just contributing to letting things rot in place instead of fixing the original issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2017 (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:Deceased American musicians

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. Timrollpickering 22:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Far too large a category. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2017 (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:Deceased American Celebrities

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. Timrollpickering 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Far too large a category. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Category:Deceased American actors redirects to the above. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (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:Native American allies of the United States

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 5 September 2017 (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:Variable fighters

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Variable fighters to Category:Macross spacecraft
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT there is no need for this subcategory to exist, it is overcategorization. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:26, 5 September 2017 (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:Universal Century vehicles

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:Gundam weapons. @Zxcvbnm: To preserve the connection with Category:Universal Century, either Category:Universal Century mobile weapons‎ or Category:Gundam weapons should be placed in Category:Universal Century now. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT this is a pointless category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:09, 5 September 2017 (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:Universal Century mobile weapons

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:Gundam weapons. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Universal Century mobile weapons to Category:Gundam mecha
Nominator's rationale: It makes sense to rename this to a less "in-universe" title that is more indicative of the subject matter, as it almost entirely consists of various Gundam mecha besides the mobile weapons article that I have tagged for deletion due to WP:NOTPLOT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:16, 6 September 2017 (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:2nd-century Egyptian 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: rename 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century categories, no consensus on the BC categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with parent categories category:2nd century in Roman Egypt and category:Roman-era Egyptians and to reduce anachronism - Egyptians generally refers to modern mostly Arab residents of the Arab Republic of Egypt, whereas in 2nd century those were clearly Ancient Egyptians and Greco-Romans. GreyShark (dibra) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting @Laurel Lodged, Dimadick, and Caeciliusinhorto: from earlier discussions.GreyShark (dibra) 05:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that?GreyShark (dibra) 05:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the AD categories; oppose & discuss separately the BC. GreyShark, perhaps Peterkingiron is referring to an exonym/endonym situation. Whether or not that concern is valid, the first thing to do is to make sure all the categories and subcategories match in terms and format, and then consider any other modifications that might be needed across the board. Plus, exonyms appear throughout an encyclopedia, and even "Egypt" wouldn't be recognized by the Romans! Geekdiva (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation -- Egypt consists of the Nile valley and delta, plus adjacent desert. The southern boundary varied somewhat between periods, at the expense of Nubia. Equally at some periods, Palestine and Syria were ruled from Egypt. I am saying that we do not need to complicate the category name, because the boundary of Roman Egypt and the present republic differ little from each other. If there were a Roman Egypt and a Nubian (or independent) Egypt at the same time we would need to disambiguate by adding "Roman". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of nationality, a person can be both Soviet citizen (before 1991) and then Georgian citizen (after 1991); since the category of nationality is labeled "of Ptolemaic Kingdom" and "of Roman Egypt", a person is described simply as citizen of those entities (not in ethnic sense), and doesn't have to self-identify as "Ptolemaic" or "Roman" or "Ancient Egyptian" (as could be understood if categories were named "1st-century BC Roman-Egyptian people" and "1st-century BC Ptolemaic people").GreyShark (dibra) 05:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But if he died before the Roman takeover, wouldn't it be wrong to automatically put him into the Roman cat? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2017 (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:High school television series

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: do not delete; no consensus on renaming; reinstate Category:Japanese high school television series. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A: Propose deleting:
  • Option B: Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup nomination to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 18#Category:Japanese high school television series. I closed the discussion, which resulted in the deletion of Japanese high school television series. The main concerns were original research and if it was a defining characteristic for a television series.
The parent category Category:High school television series is categorized as a genre (Category:Television series by genre), which brought about the original research concerns (what is a "high school genre"?). Interestingly, there is no Category:Television series by setting (the closest to that is Category:Television series by city of location, which deals with cities). The question here is, is this a defining characteristic (specifically for series set in high schools, not all settings)? If not, these categories should be deleted. If so, the setting category should be created, and the listed categories should defined as settings categories, not genre categories; however, the current naming scheme is unclear. @AngusWOOF, Fuddle, Cattus, Xezbeth, and Knowledgekid87: as you participated in the first discussion, I'd like to hear your thoughts. ℯxplicit 04:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why group in secondary school? Then that would include middle school? Or is that because the line is blurred for shows with ninth graders whether they're in junior high (3rd year) or freshman in a four-year high school? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we do keep these, having the global article be Secondary Schools while the US subcategories are High School/Junior High, and some other countries vary from the parent category would be a sensible approach to regional English. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When needed (probably once this discussion is closed), User:Explicit who closed the Japanese discussion should be able to help. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (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:Mouseheart

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one article and one template, which itself only contains one link. Trivialist (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2017 (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:Zootopia (franchise)

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only two articles; also, Zootopia is a single movie and not a "franchise." Trivialist (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2017 (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