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 all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]
The former. But the current titles are outright incorrect, technically speaking. TLA3x ♭ → ♮ 06:04, 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.
Category:Latin names of places
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]
Fair enough. An alternative proposal might be to keep the two categories, rename Category:Latin names of places into Category:Lists of Latin place names and shuffle a bit with the articles between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be fine with me. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 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". – FayenaticLondon 09:00, 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.
Category:Registered jacks
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. – FayenaticLondon 22:33, 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.
Category:Cultural studies books
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Cultural studies books
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]
Delete Not a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 22 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:Cleft lip and palate services in England
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. – FayenaticLondon 22:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Cleft lip and palate services in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
Delete Not enough articles with significant connection to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 22 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:New York ZIP codes
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category:Albums 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.
The result of the discussion was:procedural close, category page not tagged. – FayenaticLondon 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums produced by Mike WiLL Made It to Category:Albums produced by Mike Will Made-It
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]
Procedural Suggestion It looks like there is already a conversation started about renaming the main article. If I were you, I would withdraw this nomination, reach a consensus to rename the Mike Will Made It article, and then have the category speedy renamed per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 6 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.
The result of the discussion was:procedural close, category page not tagged. In any case it has by now been speedily renamed following this nomination. – FayenaticLondon 13:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Song recordings produced by Mike WiLL Made It to Category:Song recordings produced by Mike Will Made-It
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:Songs about the military
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One is redundant to the other. pbp 15:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see two distinct types of song here – ones about the military (e.g. In the Navy and ones used by the military (e.g. Military cadence songs). It may be a better idea to create a category for the latter at Category:Military marching songs, or similar, in order to clarify this difference. SFB 19:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category:Paleorrota
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support I'm pretty forgiving when the main article just hasn't been written yet, but not when the topic has been rejected. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 6 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:Defunct Fußball-Oberligas
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:07, 27 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:Fußball-Oberliga
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:10, 27 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: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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus, with no bar to prompt re-nomination. I suggest a group nomination, including the parent category as it no longer matches its main page at California Polytechnic State University, although Cal Poly San Luis Obispo (no punctuation) could also be presented as an option since several articles follow that form. – FayenaticLondon 14:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo alumni to Category:Alumni of the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
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: the reason for the subcategories starting with "Cal Poly ... " could be that they contain a team name, Cal Poly Mustangs. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, I saw that too. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Name: to Category:Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo alumni. The naming convention clearly places the word "alumni" at the end of these categories. List of Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo alumni is the main article, although I'm less than certain that lead article is well named.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 6 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.
Category:Comics by country of setting
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:upmerge Category:Comics by geographic setting to Category:Comics by setting, and keepCategory:Comics by country of setting. Note: the French category fr:Catégorie:Bande dessinée par lieu géographique du récit includes other sub-cats for locations that are not countries, e.g. in space. If such categories emerge in English Wikipedia then this close should be no objection to re-creation. – FayenaticLondon 22:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. SFB 11:54, 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]
Propose compromise Deletion of Category:Comics by geographic setting results in a compromise between SFB and FayenaticLondon. Keep Category:Comics by country of setting, but Category:Comics by geographic setting is not worth keeping. CN1 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CN1's compromise, as the geographic category contains only the country sub-cat. Has anything else been removed from it? The country one will then need to go up into Category:Comics by setting. – FayenaticLondon 16:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing has been removed from Category:Comics by geographic setting. -- CN1 (talk) 19:00, 13 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.
Category:Culture by location
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. Someone could start a new nomination reflecting the suggestions made during the discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. SFB 11:47, 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. SFB 17:02, 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]
Used in this way in the field of geography (the parent structure). See geographical location. SFB 09:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like I need to start using my words more carefully!RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 7 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]
@Peterkingiron: I've scratched the manuscripts one as this clearly has several issues which aren't addressed by this nomination. SFB 06:36, 11 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:
Upmerge Category:Lists of textile mills by geographical location to Category:Textile mills as an unnecessary layer
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]
Nono@Peterkingiron: Oh my, Africa is such a hot place. Aaah, Italy is such a beautiful place. CN1 (talk) 10:45, 3 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.
Category:Stubs
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. – FayenaticLondon 12:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from the discussion to move "Wikipedia stubs" to Category:Stubs about Wikipedia, I propose we rename the main stubs category to Category:Wikipedia stubs on the grounds that this is an administrative category that should be visibly disambiguated from the mainspace content on the many topics we have at Stub. This is in line with point four at Wikipedia:Categorization#Special_conventions. SFB 09:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Note that this proposal concerns the main stub category only and does not extent to the stub category structure as a whole, as the children are not ambiguously titled (in line with point four of Wikipedia:Categorization#Special_conventions as stated above). SFB 12:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose per RedRose64. Changing the name would just add unnecessary ambiguity. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ambiguous. While regular editors of Wikipedia would be familiar with this as jargon, the Stub disambiguation page has a number of meanings that a casual reader may misunderstand and confuse navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that only includes articles named with "Stub". I don't see, for example Tree (novel) under Category:Trees, even though it is listed on Tree (disambiguation). moluɐɯ 23:48, 17 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]
This is simply not true. By stating stubs are content categories, you are arguing that "animal stub" is a defining characteristic of a rookery. Your idea of content categories does not align with consensus of what an administrative or maintenance category is. SFB 14:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SFB, I get that you don't like stub categories (such matters have come up before). But why is it necessary to change an established system? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 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. SFB 20:45, 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. PamD 22:44, 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]
But Category:Stubs is never the correct destination for an article. If you are stub-sorting, then you should not be using this category anyway. SFB 18:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's where I find things to stub-sort. I go there, and stub-sort things out of it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 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]
Oppose - proposed name is ambiguous - it was used previously to refer to stubs about Wikipedia, and it looks like it could mean that. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - current name is good and no renaming is required. ///EuroCarGT 17:52, 18 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:People who committed Prolicide
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: deleted at request of creator and sole authors. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:People who committed Prolicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wouldn't a merger be more appropriate than deleting? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise there was a Category:Filicides - feel free to zap the prolicides one. GiraffeBoy (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the definitions, Filicide is a subset of Prolicide. Either create a full tree with those and all the others (Infanticide, Neonaticide), or merge up to Prolicide, with some category redirects. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:55, 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.