Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 27



College football standings templates

 * 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 all. —  ξ xplicit  19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging:


 * Category:Big 9 football standings templates to Category:Big Ten Conference football standings templates
 * Category:Western football standings templates to Category:Big Ten Conference football standings templates
 * Category:Big 6 football standings templates to Category:Big Eight Conference football standings templates
 * Category:Big 7 football standings templates to Category:Big Eight Conference football standings templates
 * Nominator's rationale: no need for subcategories to reflect historical name changes of these conferences. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having a subcategory for a specific time period using a name for the conference that did not exist at that time is misleading at best, historical revisionism at worst. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: it should be noted that "Big 6" and "Big 7" were unofficial names for the conference that officially became the Big Eight Conference in 1964. Prior to that, the conference was officially known as the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association.  In the case of the Big Ten Conference, it remains historically unclear when exactly the "Western Conference" moniker was no longer officially in use and unclear when the "Big Nine" moniker came into and out of use.  If anything, the current state of affairs with these categories is revisionist because of its half-baked historicity. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. These are the same organizations, in continuous existence without interruption, and the category names to be merged were not even "official" names.  There is no logic in maintaining artificially separate categories for the same entity under different names.  If someone believes that there will be any questions or confusion, a brief explanation of the name history can be included in the header of the newly consolidated category page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge makes sense to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Launch vehicle plan

 * 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 . —  ξ xplicit  19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Launch vehicle plan to Category:Abandoned launch vehicle programs
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current, newly-created category is an odd, grammatically-poor name used to create a catchall category for a listcrufty, indiscriminate list (currently PRODdded). The category does have some merit to it, though - perhaps as a category for "abandoned launch vehicle programs of Foo" by-nation categories, I think. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Cancelled space launch vehicles. This follows the names used for many subcategories in Category:Space launch vehicles.  These are cancelled is the normal use of the word in cases like this. I suspect that we normally don't use abandoned in categories for programs that are cancelled since abandoned implies that we have left something behind like a military base or a hospital building. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going by the naming tree used by the aircraft project ("Abandoned military aircraft projects of Foo"), but "Cancelled" is fine with me as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Cancelled space launch vehicles. Seems more in line with the terminology that these sorts of things use.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Mayor's Committee on Receptions to Distinguished Guests

 * 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 . —  ξ xplicit  19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mayor's Committee on Receptions to Distinguished Guests to Category:Chairmen of the Mayor's Committee on Receptions to Distinguished Guests
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the actual content of the category. Note that deletion or upmerging to Category:New York City public officials is also an option since the article is basically a list and since, as far as I can tell, this position has never made anyone notable. In particular, all three biographies omit this info from the lead which would tend to show that it's not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If kept, Chairpersons would be the preferred title unless it's limited to men. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. How phallocratic of me to miss that. :-) Pichpich (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.

Categories: Computer science departments in Great Britain & Computer science institutes in Great Britain

 * 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 both. —  ξ xplicit  19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category: Computer science departments in Great Britain to Category:Computer science departments in the United Kingdom


 * Category:Computer science institutes in Great Britain to Category:Computer science institutes in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: the United Kingdom is the usual term, other than for a few mainly historical categories Hugo999 (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Both these are rather bizarre: is a "Computer science department" also a "Computer science institute"? And Category:Computer science departments is not otherwise subcatted by country. GB is very bizarre. Occuli (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The term "Great Britain" is used just for competitors and teams in the Olympics and some other sports events, and for the Parliament of Great Britain 1707-1800. I suppose “institutes” and (University) “departments” are similar, except that institutes are standalone or private eg business institutions. Yes, at least have categories by country for USA as well as UK. Hugo999 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename Sorry, my fault. —Ruud 07:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * REname per nom -- I assume this refers to university departments. I do not think we have any "computer science institutes", at least none worthy of separate categorisation, perhaps just a few schools that have been set up for immigration fraud purposes: these will be NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Pulmonary function

 * 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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7. —  ξ xplicit  19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pulmonary function to Category:Pulmonary function testing
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename This is actually a textbook case of speedy renaming since the corresponding article is Pulmonary function testing. However, I'd like to have some input on the relevance of this category. I'm not convinced it's worth keeping. Pichpich (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I could agree with renaming, and you're probably right about its relevance. As a category, its relevant but it would only have at most, 20 articles in it; so it might be better to make this a sub-category of the Category:Respiratory therapy? Je.rrt (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Respiratory science and research as a replacement category would be good. Considering Respiratory Science is regarded as the term internationally as descriptive of the entire scope of pulmonary function testing and research, as a sub-category of respiratory therapy/respiratory care. Kastyn.rrt (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:CBS slogans

 * 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 מישהו Od Mishehu 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * cbs slogans


 * Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, and the entry is a song, not an article about a slogan. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Sole entry is improperly categorized and it's not at all clear that there will ever be anything else placed in there. Even if we changed the category's name to get a wider scope (say CBS slogans and jingles or CBS promotional material) I would still feel that it's not appropriate to consider it a defining characteristic of Get Ready which charted a gazillion times for a gazillion artists, or so it feels, in the 30 years between its first release and the CBS campaign. Pichpich (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – silly idea. Occuli (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.