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.
Comment what is the scope of the new categories? Are they supposed to cover every sort of division below county level? If not, then the proposed naming is overly ambiguous. Is this supposed to cover first-level divisions of the counties? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The nominator shows good reasoning. --Betty C REAWAKEN (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reawaken (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.
Nominator's rationale: There's no text explaining what difference there might be between the scope of these cats with very similar names. DexDor (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename & restructure proposed by Marcocapelle. Keep the existing as a redirect because many articles are "Latin names of foo". – FayenaticLondon09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Betty C REAWAKEN (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reawaken (talk • contribs)
Delete both we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. The origin of a name is not relevant to what the subject of the article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a look at the articles in these categories - the vast majority of which are about place names (including lists of places with Latin names). DexDor (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge (or restructure as Marcocapelle). The categories are not the same. One is largely a category of lists, which is certainly a legitimate category. [:Category:Latin place names]] is a hotchpotch of Roman towns and Roman provinces. There may be a good case for emplying it manually into more precise categories and then deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete as 'Cultural studies' is not a defining characteristic of the books that are listed as articles in the category. Even worse, I checked a decent sample of articles and not one of them even mentions 'Cultural studies' once in the body text. One of the articles that I checked mentions 'Cultural studies' in the infobox, but this article was about a book of Sigmund Freud, hence written before Culture studies even existed. A few of the articles that I checked mentioned 'Cultural psychology' but Cultural psychology doesn't mention 'Cultural studies' in its body text either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2014 (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.
Delete, on the basis only two of the category members directly fit the bill, which is an insufficient number to warrant a category (especially as there do not appear to be any other Cleft lip and palate services categories on Wikipedia). It is in danger of performing the role of a hospital services directory. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The two hopsital articles do not mention cleft palate, and so sholuld not be in the category (or only appear in violation of something similar to WP:OC#PERF (the hospital being the performer, by - perhaps - offering the treatment. The other two are too few to make a worthwhile category, but can we find a merge target for them? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2014 (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: Unlikely to be populated: only one article and one redirect in category, and the parent category (for individual ZIP codes) is definitely not in need of any diffusion. Closeapple (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the nominator. --Betty C REAWAKEN (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reawaken (talk • contribs)
Merge We only seem to have two articles on specific zip codes. In general zip codes are too small to get enough coverage, or people just have not followed it. I know there is an idea of "zip code envy" and having the desirable zip codes, but there has not been any indepth creation of articles on this subject to date. The fact that Manhattan has multiple buildings that have a zip code all to themselves may be a reason why. Many zip codes are just too small to be noticed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2014 (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: The capital Ls in the middle of "Will" are unnecessary, and listings on online music stores and video streaming services show that it is increasingly common to see "Made It" hyphenated as "Made-It". WikiRedactor (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2014 (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:Song recordings produced by Mike WiLL Made It
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 capital Ls in the middle of "Will" are unnecessary, and listings on online music stores and video streaming services show that it is increasingly common to see "Made It" hyphenated as "Made-It". WikiRedactor (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2014 (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.
Oppose per SFB. A song "about" the military is not the same as a military song. If the nomination had been a delete I would have supported. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose clearly different scopes. Songs that preach peace and not war which feature the military are songs about the military, but it is not military music. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Changing the name is not necessary. --Betty C REAWAKEN (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reawaken (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The head article for this category, Paleorrota, was deleted following an AfD discussion. This was because the article was very largely a concoction based on scant evidence that the geopark exists. This seems to be a good reason to remove the associated category too. Sionk (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2014 (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.
Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo alumni
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 current title is awkward. Expressions like "in a July 5, 2014, interview ..." and "a Toledo, Ohio, resident ... " should be avoided (though I can't say off the top of my head which guideline it is), and be reworded as "in an interview on July 5, 2014, ..." and "a resident of Toledo, Ohio, ... ", respectively. The same would apply for category names, wouldn't it? Alternatively, the "San Luis Obispo" stuff could be omitted, as it isn't there in the article name. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as far as I can see, that is only a category. Do you have a guideline, an RFC, or something similar? Reasonably, "composite" names such as this one would need to be considered there. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The universal standard is the for American institutions we put alumni at the end of the category name. There is no reason to change that practice now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2014 (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: Upmerge the contents to the grandparent category - this is a small category structure at the moment and there is no other explanation about what kind of other "settings" this category may contain. As of yet there are none so there is little reason to create this structure. SFB11:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nominators rationale. The tiny number of subcategories in each category mean this makes perfect sense. Sionk (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2014 (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: Location connotes a physically defined and limited space. Place refers to the human/social idea of space (which is what we're referencing here for aspects of human culture). For example, consider when a city expands its limits - these new elements are not the same location, but they do form part of the same place. Note the meaning of the categories' current parent Category:Categories by geographical location – this should be used for categories on physical topics, whereas place should be used for human cultural topics. SFB11:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give an example, Category:Populated places sits at the head of this reasoning. As this phrase is more idiomatic, changing it to "populated locations" drives home the distinction between "place" as a human thing and "location" as physical, geometrical thing. SFB17:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
cmt Please provide examples "place should be used for human cultural topics" and the category structure which these places would be a part of. Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question In my colloquial speech, I use these two words interchangeably. Do these terms have more specific meanings in anthropology or some other discipline that you could point to? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Location" is a point or an area on the map, whereas "place" is used to refer to cities or countries. When the country of Yugoslavia broke up, the location on the map did not vanish, just the state was no more. A location only consists of his coordinates, a place consists of much more. Location can never change, except the coordinates. Places can change in many ways and also can disappear. -- CN1 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
do not change as nominated From the definition found in geographical location "The terms location and place in geography are used to identify a point or an area on the Earth's surface or elsewhere. The term location generally implies a higher degree of certainty than place, which often indicates an entity with an ambiguous boundary, relying more on human/social attributes of place identity and sense of place than on geometry.", it is clear that location needs to be used in all cases when we are talking about continents or countries or cities or the like, which many of these categories do. Hmains (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that some people have voted without even sampling the categories nominated. In several cases, this is a parent to "by continent", "by country" and "by city" categories. Here it is a location type - location approximately fits; place certainly does not. The manuscripts one does not fit that pattern at all well. The Dutch, Irish, and Greek categories are probably by language; Mount Athos is clearly a place; Byzantine is a national origin (the language probably being Greek. There may be a few which would be better renamed (including MSS), but these needed to be nominated individually. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my initial thoughts were exactly as Peterkingiron says, as "by location" is commonly used to parent categories by continent, region, country and city. That standard form would suggest a reverse nomination to rename at least some of the categories by place as "by location", e.g. Category:Geography by place and Category:Landforms by place. Some of the nominated cases have no connection with populated places, e.g. shipwrecks and protected areas. However, "place" is much wider than "populated place", e.g. Category:Burials by place includes burials at sea and space burials, which I think fit better under "place" than "location". Since Category:Religion by location includes an article on Religion in space, that seems to support the nomination, for that one at any rate. However, I have specific proposals for some of the nominated categories:
You are missing the point: a continent is not exactly either a location or a place. Most of these are parents to categories "by continent", "by country", and "by city". To my mind, location is better than place. However, it would be better if we could find a descriptor that would cover all of these. The best I can think of is "location type". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2014 (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.
Oppose as point four cited above also says no such prefix is required "where no confusion is likely". With what extant category could Category:Stubs be likely confused? None, as far as I can tell. - Dravecky (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this is a Wikipedia maintenance category, and not content categorization. It is certainly not about encyclopdic stub topics. The category and it's category redirect Category:Stub should be deleted after the rename and not become redirects. As for the confusion with {{Wikipedia-stub}} and Category:All stub articles, then Category:Wikipedia:Stub stubs should handle that with a fake namespace indication, to indicate maintenance and non-content categorization. Using "stub" twice would indicate this is for the stub-type "stub". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My dislike of stubs is your invention. I think they are a perfectly useful part of the Wikipedia maintenance structure, and should be treated as so. Just because something was previously done in one way doesn't mean we shouldn't consider better ways of doing it, or question the logic of why it was structured that way in the first place. SFB20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a maintenance issue like any other (lacking inline citations, needing other than primary sources, missing lede, etc) It concerns issues about how the article is currently written. It is not about any of the characteristics of the topic the article documents, so it is categorization based on how it is written, not what it is about. Thus maintenance categorization, not content categorization. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: no evidence that any readers of the encyclopedia are in any way confused or inconvenienced by the status quo. PamD22:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about any content topics known as "stub" as seen from our articlespace page stub which lists several content-topics called "stubs". The category name does not indicate it is not about stubs as is found in the world at large, outside of Wikipedia. Rather this is for Wikipedia administration, so should be named to indicate it isn't about any topic that would be known as "stub", instead of the lacking of length or depth in the article, which isn't the topic of "stub" but an administrative determination of Wikipedians. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no need to change the name. Lengthening the name will just add inconvenience to searching for the category. --Betty C REAWAKEN (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reawaken (talk • contribs)
Oppose pending evidence that anyone is actually confused by this. As a sometime stub-sorter, I'd just as soon not have to type extra words in the box. If it ain't broke... -GTBacchus(talk)14:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, shortcuts. Redirects, too. I guess this good point reduces my rationale for opposing to, "If it ain't broke...". That's still sufficient reason to oppose a needless category rename. -GTBacchus(talk)15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RedRose64. No need whatsoever to change the existing name; this is just a "catch-all" stub category, good for article stubs of undefined categorization. --Fadesga (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2014 (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.
