Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 28

< March 27 March 29 >

March 28

Category:North Group (Trujillo)

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 14:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to one of two options:
1 - The key article is North Group, so a rename to Category:North Group is better than the current name.
2 - All other categories for Trujillo follow the standard of Category:Trujillo, Peru; as such, Category:North Group (Trujillo, Peru) is also better than the current name.
Personally, I favour Option 1, but either would be an improvement. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- categories sometimes need disambiguators where articles have none. The categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands, not Birmingham, to keep Birmingham, Al out of them. I am surprised that there is no other "North Group", and so would discourage 1. On the other hand, there is no need for a disambiguator to be any longer than needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose option 1/neutral on other. This needs some amount of disambiguation. I am not sure if it might need more than it has, but it needs at least what it has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2013 (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:UCI Road World Cup

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:UCI Road World Cup (men). – Fayenatic London 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To distinguish from the ongoing UCI women's world cup category. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2013 (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:Road bicycle races

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, but move all contents to the subcategory Category:Men's road bicycle races.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this category are only men's races listed. There is also a category for women's races (Category:Women's cycle races). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2013 (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.

Grand viziers

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalise per Grand Vizier, List of Ottoman Grand Viziers and parent Category:Grand Viziers of the Ottoman Empire; change monarch name to match main article Suleiman the Magnificent. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose : Vizier was a title. It was equivalent to modern government minister and grand vizier was the equivalent of Prime minister. In WP article Prime minister the word minister is written with a small p. So why to capitalize vizier ? (Well the article Grand Vizier may need moving , but that's another story.) I also oppose moving Suleyman I to Suleyman the Magnificient in cat. Most other sultans (Mehmet II, Selim I etc.) also have epithets. But their cats doesn't use the epithets. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at Speedy renaming page
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:Films based on works by Huh Young-man

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: withdrawn. The article has moved back to match the category name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These were speedily renamed to the spelling "Huh Young-man," but the article is at Heo Yeong-man.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2013 (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:Statistics qualifications

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be an example of over categorisation. Three of the 4 articles in this cat are already in the parent cat (Statistics education) Illia Connell (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. Three entries plainly belong in the education cat rather than here, and the fourth is not enough to rest a category on. "Qualifications" is vague and potentially misleading. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a clear distinction in topics, with reasonable scope for expansion of qualfications in other countries. Unfortunate blurring of scope by incorrect additions can be remedied. 81.98.35.149 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that you have removed two today; as they are in the head category this is not a problem, but it's generally not appropriate to remove pages during a category discussion. As for the scope for expansion: the category could always be re-created once there are sufficient articles to justify it. I would have no objection to redirecting it in the meantime, to make it slightly easier to re-create it if & when needed. – Fayenatic London 23:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-categorisation of articles has ALWAYS been allowed during discussions, particularly since editors usually only look at the aticldes they are editing, not the category listing which is where the notice is. The only constraint is "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." The two articles were clearly misclassified. 81.98.35.149 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The current category is too small to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2013 (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.

Al Ahli SC (Doha)

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Al Ahli SC (Doha). – Michael (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2013 (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.