Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 4

< March 3	March 5 >

March 4

Category:Stroud, Gloucestershire

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 to Category: Stroud (district), noting the main article location and the use of "district" in Category:Districts of England. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stroud, Gloucestershire to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Stroud, Gloucestershire is ambiguous. The main article is Stroud (district), not Stroud (which is the town). A better name for the main article would be Stroud District, the official name of the district. The category should follow: either Category:Stroud District, or if the article is not renamed, Category: Stroud (district). Mhockey (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I've been adding articles to it based on the text "This category relates to the district of Stroud"; and the red area on the accompanying "map" also shows the district, not the town. Since Stroud (district) is consistent with Cotswold (district) and Forest of Dean (district), I'd say that the category should be Category:Stroud (district).. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the place for the discussion, but the naming convention for UK districts was briefly discussed here. It would be quite a task to rename them all, but I think the general point is that "District" is not just a disambiguator, it is part of the name.--Mhockey (talk) 10:32, 7 March 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:Scottish Premier League Manager Of The Month Award Winners

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: Speedy delete per C1. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per C1. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 02:01, 5 March 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:Scottish Premier League Managers

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Premier League Managers to Category:Scottish Premier League managers

Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalization Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, manager should not be capitalised. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This should be a speedy (but the category is not tagged). Occuli (talk) 14:23, 7 March 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:Scottish Premier League Manager Of The Month Award Winner

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 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Over-categorization Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, over-catting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree feel this is a valid category it is an achievement for a player to win this and is a valid cat to show this.Warburton1368 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – it would be more impressive for a Scottish Premier League manager to fail to get this award as there are only 12 of them. Occuli (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is in correct few managers actually receive the award in reality and there only being 12 at any one time is nothing to do with itWarburton1368 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is important enough to have an article on it located at Scottish Premier League monthly awards. Warburton1368 20:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The frequency with which the award is issued (monthly) makes it a minor award. It doesn't have its own article for that reason, and as such we need not categorise for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a monthly award is inevitably minor. In this particular case we have 36 managers who have received the award, out of a total of 45 in Category:Scottish Premier League Managers. Ridiculous. Occuli (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it's like the "Worker of the Week" award in The Simpsons #1F13 Deep Space Homer? Everybody has the right to win it at least once. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does have its own article located atScottish Premier League monthly awards Its not a minor award at all Warburton1368 20:40, 7 March 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:Scottish Premier League Players Of The Month Award Winners

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 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Over-categorization Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, over-catting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree feel this is a valid category it is an achievement for a player to win this and is a valid cat to show this.Warburton1368 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Where is the article Scottish Premier League Players Of The Month Award? Who gives the award? Is it sufficiently prestigious to be mentioned in each player's article? Is it the Clydesdale Bank Premier League Player of the Month award? If the other banks gave awards would they all be categorised? Occuli (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is located at Scottish Premier League monthly awards. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bank are the sponsor of the award in reality the award is given by the SPL and yes it is prestigious enough and should be listed under honours. Warburton1368 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The frequency with which the award is issued (monthly) makes it a minor award. It doesn't have its own article for that rason, and as such we need not categorise for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned above it does have its own article contrary to what user above states.Warburton1368 20:41, 7 March 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:Trenton, Maine

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 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a very small town which only contains 3 articles and is likely to never be expanded. TM 12:34, 4 March 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:Departments of Chile

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 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Departments used to be first-level administrative divisions of Chile but were replaced in the 1970s. I suggest we delete this cat and move any pages in it to Category:Former departments of Chile instead, which does need to be further populated. - Ruodyssey (talk) 10:19, 4 March 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:Members of the Reichsrat (1861-1918)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Reichsrat (1861-1918) to Category:Members of the Imperial Council (Austria)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article for the Austrian Reichsrat is Imperial Council (Austria). I suggest making the name of the category reflect that of the article. All members of the Austrian Reichsrat served between 1861 and 1918, so including the date range is unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support making the name of the category reflect that of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 5 March 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:Brussels Parliament

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brussels Parliament to Category:Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this category to match its main article, which is Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent article. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 01:54, 5 March 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.

Matching national legislature names

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies to Category:Chamber of Deputies of Luxembourg (main article)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is standard practice for the categories named after national legislatures to match name of the corresponding articles. These are the ones that currently do not match. I propose that each should be changed to match its main article. If these category names are changed, there are some subcategories which may also need to be changed; I will follow-up on those. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming all - categories are always named after the main article, whether its about a legislature, a chemical compound, or a work of art. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 March 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.