Category:Orders, decorations and medals of South Africa[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.
I'm quite happy with the suggestion, but I don't understand why this particular category tree is so overburdened with commas. Do they help? And, if not, should we not remove them all, for the sake of consistency with the encyclopaedia more generally?Rathfelder (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Having a comma preceding "and" in this title would be incorrect in all versions of English, be it British, Australian, Canadian, South African, even American. I can't speak for German, but it's also wrong in Afrikaans. I fail to see why this issue is even being raised here. Changing the title (again!) from correct punctuation to incorrect punctuation merely to be in conformity with the incorrectness of a horde of others in the category tree, is plain silly and most definitely contrary to the high quality standards which Wikipedians should strive to maintain. Rather spend your energy on correcting the errors in the rest, if you must. I said this before: In this case, Mommy would have been quite right to say "Look, my Johnny is the only one marching in pace..." -- André Kritzinger (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Placing a comma at this point is known as an "Oxford Comma". It is recommended by some (presumably including Oxford University Press, but its appearance is neither correct nor incorrect. Both versions appear to exist. One should be a redirect to the other. I prefer having the Oxford comma, but this is not a real ENGVAR issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. I really have no opinion on the Oxford comma but this subcategory is the odd one out in this tree. (If there is a larger nomination to rename the whole tree, I'll be neutral.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 11 May 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Change all - having 'Melbourne City FC W-League' implies that is the name of the club, whereas it being in brackets makes it clear it is a disambiguator. Agree that this should be consistent throughout. GiantSnowman07:10, 12 May 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge or reverse merge Stefanomione created both categories the same day. This one has the subcat Astronomy magazines. The other, larger, category has Astronomy journals. Once again, all of this is just mucking about with his own private logic for these things: it's confusing to readers, makes little or no sense. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of how categories are used in Wikipedia should realise that the distinction (if there is one) between these two topics is far too subtle for editors to place articles in the correct one. If Stefanomione thinks that such similar categories are needed then xe really needs to be putting an explanation (including a link to the other category) in the category text. DexDor(talk)19:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - <SIGH!> Stefanomione, please, please, PLEASE... stop creating these duplicative, hair-splitting, category-pairs. They are NOT helpful. Cgingold (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I don't understand why there is a debate on this topic at all! There is a very simple logical distinction. As an example: the famous Pythagorean theorem is one of the most famous works in mathematics, and the theorem with it's entirety is accomplished purely using the definitions, axioms, theorems,...of Mathematics and nothing else. This is "Mathematical works". However, a novel about fantasizing what kind of emotions went through Pythagoras when he proved the famous theorem. The author of the novel might not even know the theorem itself but only know that the Theorem had a significant impact on mankind! This is "Works about mathematics". And this can be generalized to any disciple, not just Mathematics! Astronomical works, works about Astronomy; Biotechnological works, Works about biotechnology; Political works, Works about Politics; Psychopharmacological works, Works about Psychopharmacology,... Again, as an example, a new anti psychotic is in the stage of testing, this is Psycho pharmacological work. A journal published about criticizing the psychopharmacology industry, this is Work about psychopharmacology! Again, I am not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend! Tpetrosi (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! The Pythagorean theorem article is about "a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle" - not about a specific work. So it's categorized in Category:Theorems in plane geometry (amongst other things) rather than in any "works" category. What do you think of the category descriptions that Stefanomione has now added? - I'm not sure they align with your distinction between the categories. DexDor(talk)22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in favor of Keep Both . DexDor, first, thank you for welcoming me! First and foremost, I should mention that I am a Pure Mathematician by profession. As logic is fundamental to all of mathematics, I will try to make yet again another argument without rigorous logical prove as understanding it limits only to Mathematicians. The example that I gave with the Pythagorean Theorem is in a category of Euclidean Plane Geometry, which is a subcategory of Elementary Geometry which is a subcategory of Geometry which is a subcategory of Mathematics. Of course, in itself is a theorem with a simple proof given by Pythagoras more than 2000 years ago, now there is hundreds of proofs. At the time this was an absolute breakthrough in mathematics. But the semantics of categorizing it in Mathematical Works is irrefutable. Now, again with very simple logic “Mathematics Works” and “Work about Mathematics” are in NO way equivalent statements. In fact, there is a one way implication, EVERY Mathematical Work is also a Work about Mathematics, however NOT every Work about Mathematics is a Mathematical Work! As an example, for simplicity, a Calculus book is a Mathematical work but it is ALSO Work about Mathematics but a biography of Leibniz and Newton with the famous debate of who invented Calculus, whose notation was better, was it completely independent work or is there a conspiracy theory,… is a Work about Mathematics but NOT Mathematical Work! Mathematical Work MUST be Professional in it’s field but Work about Mathematics does NOT have to be NECESSARILY professional in it’s field!! This generalizes to any fied not just Mathematics as the logic is identical. So if the two are merged reasoning “there is little difference if any” is absolutely unacceptable!!! With that logic "apple" and "fruit" are one and the same!!!=) Tpetrosi (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we agree that all works under discussion are "Works about". So then it just becomes a matter of how we cleverly subdivide the "Works about" categories, and the question is in particular do we need subcategories such as Category:Astronomical works. I would say no, titles like these are too ambiguous (as I was joking before about falling stars) and the subcategories of Category:Astronomical works can just as well be put directly under Category:Works about astronomy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 13 May 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:Student Organizations in Bangladesh[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.
Kayser Ahmad No, we won't fix a category that shouldn't have ever existed as a duplicate. But as someone from Bangladesh, help us come up with the most widely used spelling in English-language sources of Bangladesh. --PanchoS (talk) 01:25, 10 May 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.
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.
Support for consistency, and the words "industry", "employer" and "trade" are not really needed, they are implied by "business" anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but "many of the same arguments" may or may not be enough to arrive at the same conclusion. Let's proceed step by step, and see what is the most sensible solution for that case. --PanchoS (talk) 22:25, 9 May 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:Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry[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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The category's scope note makes clear that words named "word of the year" by various sources belong here, so let's use the plural typical for categories here. BDD (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - IMO it would be better for this category to be restricted to articles about the topic of Word of the year (designation) rather than articles about words (e.g. Metrosexual) (or the concept referred to by a word). See also WP:OC#AWARD - list(s) are more appropriate for such things. As such, the existing category name is more appropriate. DexDor(talk)19:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purge This group is clearly defining for the "Word of the Year..." pages. I don't believe grouping the actual words is defining. (No opinion on the category rename proposal.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purge. It would be acceptable for the individual words to be listed in the appropriate articles, and this is acceptable as a category for the articles about the designations — but it's not useful as a category for the words that happened to get named "word of the year" by some WOTY-conferring organization, because it is not a WP:DEFINING point of commonality between metrosexual and w00t. So this needs to be purged of the individual words. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 12 May 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:Industry trade groups based in Rajasthan[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.
Rajasthan is State in India.. so it may be better to have Rajasthan to provide more specific info. otherwise it may be confusingAjayDAta 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaydata (talk • contribs)
Sure it is a state in India. I'm however failing to see that this singular and almost empty spin-off category helps us better categorize our Business in Rajasthan related content. --PanchoS (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that Rajasthan needs a Rajasthan-specific subcategory of every "Business in India" category, even if there's only one article to file in it. If there were five or six or ten such groups, then a state-specific subcategory might be warranted — but it's not helpful or useful as a category of one. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 12 May 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:Trade organizations based 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:merge, since the target is older and also conforms to the article name. But if users want to change the article name or propose that the category be renamed, they can do so. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge redundant, all too vague, and almost empty category to its established counterpart. PanchoS (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reverse -- Though I am not an American, I would have thought that the subject was the better choice, though the main article may also need renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 10 May 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category:Presidents of organizations is currently subcat to Category:Members of organizations and Category:Presidents. There is no article nor redirect for president of organization. The article on President is about "the leader of a country or a division or part of a country", and outside of a lead disammbig-like mention that "The title "president" is sometimes used by extension for leaders of other groups, including corporate entities." it does not discuss such usage. Category:Presidents is subcat to several political subcategories, as well as Category:Management occupations. Now, Category:Chairmen is subcat only to Category:People by occupation and Category:Members of organizations (I have just added it to Category:Management occupations). The article on Chairmen notes that "The chairman is the highest officer of an organized group", has later on a reference sentence "Other terms sometimes used for the office and its holder include chair, chairperson, chairwoman, presiding officer, president, moderator, facilitator, and convenor" and is categorized under a number of categories that probably should be copied to Category:Chairmen. Leaving aside the mess in related subcategories, I think it is clear that the "president of organization" = "chairman" as far as the logic and usage is concerned, and we should only have one related category. If anyone disagrees, please be kind enough to provide a workable definition for "president of organization" that is distinguishable from that for "chairman". PS. There is the issue of a gender-neutrality in related terms to consider, but I'd suggest it is discussed separately, through a RM/RfC at Talk:Chairman, while we here just take care of the technical merger of two categories about the same concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RevelationDirect and like the proposal Category:Leaders of organi(z/s)ations. In the end, you will find organizations with figurehead presidents as well as those where the president really is the organization's leader, and you'll find lots of organizations from non-English language contexts, where the native language's title is interchangably translated as "president", "chairman" or "leader". Organizations are rather free to define title and impact of their leadership, so I seriously doubt that it is possible to categorize by one or the other, except for some specific cases, where titles and role of the leadership are legally defined within a jurisdiction, or follow tradition and common-sense. In the more general case, all we can do is decide on a per-article basis whether someone has a leadership role in an organization. --PanchoS (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Some organisations have Presidents; others have chairmen; some have both, with the president normally being a figurehead. CEO is certainly neither of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever its called it needs to be a Container category. Putting the president/Chairman of Goldman Sacks in a category with the president of Penzance pigeon fanciers club is not very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)
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.
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.
@Piotrus: the instructions at CFD do contain the word "merge" and a template for doing so. "Upmerge" is our local CfD shorthand for merging to a parent category. Do you wish to change the nomination to "merge"? Alternatively, there is a template to "split", e.g. to Category:Organizations by subject/Category:Organizations by type. Either way, it will be easier to reparent the contents at the time of closure, rather than to trace them after deletion. – FayenaticLondon13:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree I can see your point that the definition is very unclear. While I can see a point in categorizing by activity, if these specific "activities" however are so heterogenous and unrepresentative of organizations as a whole, then the categorization scheme indeed seems to be non-viable, at least at this point. I'd rather not rush into deleting it, so hope for additional input by other editors. Note that while you're right that the word "upmerge" isn't to be found on Wikipedia:CfD, it should be clear to anyone, and is obviously clear to you, that it is a special (or rather the most usual) case of a "merge". A little bit of nitpicking is fine, but c'mon, you know better than complaining about our imperfection, don't you? ;-) --PanchoS (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
agree. Not a useful division. The notion of "activity" is rather vague in this context. Subject seems a better concept. Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but we appear to have two targets: I cannot quite work out how they differ. I suspect that all three need to be reorganised manually. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 May 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, different denominations use a different term (either "worship" or "liturgy") for a similar concept, let's use both terms in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I created this category but can support this nomination. It's a wee bit long but can live with it. As long as the name does not in future extend to "practices" or the LDS ~"ordinances, rituals, and symbolism". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 9 May 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.
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 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.
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.
Keep cause primary, secondary and tertiary sources/works are scientific and encyclopaedial terms (possibly rename to 'Tertiary fictional sources') - Weapon X(talk, contribs)10:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A database or encyclopedia of art or comics may be tertiary, but it isn't fictional. It is a fact what year a comic was introduced, it is a fact who painted what building, etc. RevelationDirect (talk)`
Delete per the nom and RevelationDirect: a work may be used as a tertiary source, but it isn't a tertiary source by itself. In another context, the same work may be a primary or secondary source, as "tertiary" is a role, not a characteristic. --PanchoS (talk) 15:24, 9 May 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.
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.
Up to you!. I wrote the Seri Rambai article (it's about a cannon in Penang) and figured I needed to add it to some categories. I created Notable Cannon before noticing that a similar category, Individual Cannons, was already in use. If it's of any interest, I intend one day soon to re-write that article about the Pattani cannon, Phaya Tani. If you guys are interested in cannon, please let me know as I'd like to submit the Seri Rambai article to FAC and would welcome feedback from people who know about these things. Singora (talk) 06:16, 10 May 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.
10:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
