Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 9

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: double upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mayors of Johnstown, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Johnstown, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. Also upmerge category into Mayors of places in Pennsylvania. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual Upmerge with no objection to recreating later if we get up to 5 articles or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Small towns don't need separate cats for their mayors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Double upmerge -- Obviously. Mayors of small towns will usually be NN, so that we will only get articles if they are notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 13 March 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 result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Member of telephone advisory committees India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Advisory Committees also known as TAC is an Indian Government body made up of Members of parliament and nominated members by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India) all Indian member of parliament are TAC members http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/1_6.pdf Indiarec (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the committee are appointed by the minister and many of those are people who had helped minister/ruling party in elections/politically . There are several such committees at federal and state government levels.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This has the feel of a performance by performer category, since it will be a part-time position.

Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining to those involved. This is just one of many government appointments these people will have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 26 March 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 result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia fully-protected files (to be most consistent with others). – Fayenatic London 02:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Protected images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedia protected files

Nominator's rationale: I'm just wondering if it should be called Category:Wikipedia protected files as I assume non-image files would also go into this category. Also the "Wikipedia" should probably be added for consistency. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @MSGJ: According to the header, this is for files that have been "fully protected" so maybe that phrase can be used. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support adding "Wikipedia" this is project management and not content categorization. It's not about Crown Copyrighted images or government protected dossiers -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename. Category:Semi-protected images should also be renamed. DexDor ^(talk) 21:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for template help: @Mr. Stradivarius: it looks as if this should be closed as "rename to Category:Wikipedia fully protected files", but I cannot see where in a template or module this would need to be implemented. I am willing to close the discussion and change the categories, but would you be able to do the implementation on templates, please? – Fayenatic London 16:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london: The module that needs changing is Module:Protection banner/config (specifically, the line ['all|file|all|sysop|edit'] = 'Protected images', about two thirds of the way down the page). There are a few other categories there that look like they need changing as well, though, e.g. Category:Semi-protected images and Category:Protected talk pages. Should we just change Category:Protected images for now, or do we need to discuss the other ones too? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks very much for that link. I'll just change the one covered by this discussion, but will put the others forward for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 02:38, 30 April 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 result of the discussion was: rename top category, no consensus on alumni. If they are re-nominated, editors nominating/commenting would do well to give examples of precedents. – Fayenatic London 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Renaming and Expanding Category:William Mitchell College of Law to Category:Mitchell Hamline School of Law

• Tagged Category:Hamline University School of Law alumni for consideration
• Tagged Category:William Mitchell College of Law alumni for consideration

Nominator's rationale: Housekeeping item to keep up with current events.

In December of 2015, Hamline University School of Law and William Mitchell College of Law merged as equals to form Mitchell Hamline School of Law (source). I was inadvertently bold and already expanded the content of the existing category. Typically we update the name of the alumni categories to match the current school name but I'm not sure how we handle 50/50 mergers; I've tagged both in case other editors want to merge them into Category:Mitchell Hamline School of Law alumni though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified SWMNPoliSciProject as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The practice is to merge alumni categories for merged or renamed institutions. The headnote will need to explain this. There may be a case for keeping articles on both past institutions, as well as a separate one of the merged one, but that would only be if they were all large articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename parent category per nom, but oppose merger of the alumni categories. I see no navigational or other benefit in obliterating the separate histories of the two predecessor colleges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to be under the current name. We use the current name and ignore the fact that seperate institutions existed in the past. We on rare occasion make excpetions when the past institution was of a different level (a high school as opposed to current college/university) but that is fairly rare. Otherwise we would get way too many overly small categories, considering some institutions of higher learning in the US have gone trhough at least 5 names, and some in Britain and elsewhere may have as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 26 March 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.