Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 26



Category:Universities and colleges with a Division of Respiratory Care

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * universities and colleges with a division of respiratory care


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't have a scheme for categorizing academic institutions by what kind of divisions they have. We do have the more broad and, for instance, but I think this is creating too specific a subdivision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete a very bad idea; next we'll have every major/minor/department to categorize uni's. Cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete what next Category:Universities and colleges with law schools, Category:Universities and colleges with a division of nursing, Category:Universities and colleges with a history department? This is the type of thing that can be done with a list in some cases, but does not make sense as a category.  Category:Universities and colleges with a school of music is another possiblity.  This presents a good 10 or more new categories for the University of Michigan, Brigham Young University and many other universities.  Depending on how low level we want to go, it could be 50 new categories for some universites.  Category:Universities and colleges with dental schools is another one the University of Michigan could go in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This sort of category is not a defining characteristic of a university, and it is a recipe for massive category clutter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- "Respiratory care" is an element of a hospital or medical school. The proper way of dealing with this is for the medical school to be in that category.  Having such a departmetn is rather too like a performance by performer category, the depeartment being the performance and the university the perfomer.  I would gusses that every medical school deals with respiratory care.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment at least one of the three articles in this category does not have a medical school. Thus there are other places that respitory care can be put.  Respitory therapists are not doctors, and so are not trained in medical schools.  In the United States there is a whole set of allied health professions, many taught in Community Colleges, and when in universities if they are in a seperate college it is likely to be the one that includes pharmacy as its main focus.  At least that was how it was at the one university I attended that had a medical school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This sort of category would result in catastrophic clutter. Pichpich (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2012 (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:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms

 * 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 by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species and Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters
 * Nominator's rationale: This category, while useful in the earlier days of Wikipedia, has outgrown it's usefulness. The name of this category is fairly vague with reference to individual characters or groups of similar organisms. There is nothing in this category that could not fit within one of the other two categories suggested. and in fact states that it's purpose is for alien species. Obviously this category is too vague to be used properly as it's filled with articles on characters. Thanks for your thoughts. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn: I formally withdraw my nomination for splitting the category in light of opposition and previous discussions I hadn't known about, thank you all for your input. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - species should only be used when an actual (pseudo-)scientific nomenclature is applied to the creature in question. Otherwise, life forms seems to be the recurring consensus at CfD. (Incidentally, why are "race" and "species" lumped together? I notice this not just here but in other category groupings the nom has been working on.) If there are any articles on individual characters they may of course be recatted per editorial discretion (though I don't know about some characters, being the only known example of a life form). - jc37 00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment At this point, aren't all extraterrestrial life forms fictional; do we really need the modifier? Or does this category include everything but, arguably, a Martian asteroid?  RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, although I ran into a problem before with similar named categories; A lot of wikipedians believe we should keep the term fictional, despite the fact that they are, as of right now, all fictional. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment the categorization scheme here is messy: we have two obviously potential overlappers: and ; the existence of a binomial as suggested by Jc37 is not sufficient to distinguish the two. One cat seems to be subdivided by fictional universe, some fictional works have only 1 type of alien (close encounters, ET, and 2001 come to mind), so those not in a subdivision could be used to populate the main category, so why not merge these? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the use of fictional is needed so people do not think we are claiming these are real. We make sure to ghetoize fictional things in their own categories.  I see no pressing need for the split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's no extreme need, but as I've reiterated before, it's my opinion that my (proposed) categories lend themselves to be more readily understood to mean "This one is for characters" and "This other one is for groups/races".


 * Comment - It really is not clear what the nominator is proposing here. However, I suspect that he is asking for Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms to be deleted after its contents have been reallocated to the other two categories. If that is the case, then I am strongly opposed. First of all, the category was created pursuant to a CFD discussion in 2008 expressly in order to replace Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species -- a holdover from the earlier days of Wikipedia that had outgrown it's usefulness (so to speak), but which has now been re-created by the nominator. The use of the term "life forms" stems from Category:Fictional life forms -- which I have restored as an obvious parent cat after it was (wrongly) removed by the nominator. In both cases, the reason for using the formulation "life forms" is very simple: because it was recognized that "fictional life forms" is the term that best encapsulates the full range of fictional living entities that need to be dealt with. It is simply not the case that all of those entities can be regarded as either "fictional species" or "fictional characters", so this proposal is hopelessly wrongheaded, imho. Cgingold (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2012 (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:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons

 * 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 files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files with a different file under the same name on Wikimedia Commons – C2C. Kelly  hi! 17:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest Category:Wikipedia files with a different file under the same name on Wikimedia Commons, in part per similar titles such as Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons but mainly to distinguish the locations of the files. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Wikipedia files with a different file under the same name on Wikimedia Commons
 * Nominator's rationale: Per similar titles such as Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons‎, but mainly to distinguish the locations of the files: files on Wikipedia which have the same name as a different file on Wikimedia Commons. Another option would be Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons, following the title of Template:ShadowsCommons. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons because it is a little shorter and per nominator. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:53, 29 March 2012 (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.

Peking opera

 * 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 "Peking opera" (including capitalisation). Timrollpickering (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Beijing operas‎ to Category:Peking operas‎ – C2C, per Category:Peking opera. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Films featuring Beijing opera to Category:Films featuring Peking opera
 * Please see my comment below. Cgingold (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Peking Opera singers to Category:Beijing opera singers. - Funny this issue wasn't rectified when the category was Speedied last year to pluralize it. Anyway, the parent & both siblings all use "Beijing opera", Beijing being the currently accepted name for what was formerly called Peking. Cgingold (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest Category:Peking opera singers. I have nominated the parent category above as it should match the main article, Peking opera. Since Peking or Beijing opera refers to a style of opera, rather than merely opera performed in Beijing, it is not necessary to follow the modern spelling of the city's name (same as with Peking Duck, for example). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is not Beijing Opera, it is Peking Opera, since it is not about the city, it is about the style (like Peking Duck as pointed out before) 65.92.180.188 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no real preference one way or the other, but I suggest this whole issue be taken to full CFD (along with the item posted above) as it clearly exceeds the purview of Speedy. Cgingold (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Beijing operas‎ to Category:Peking operas‎
 * Category:Films featuring Beijing opera to Category:Films featuring Peking opera
 * Category:Peking Opera singers to Category:Beijing opera singers
 * Nominator's rationale: Per Peking opera and Category:Peking opera. Since the terms 'Peking opera' or 'Beijing opera' refer to a particular style of opera rather than merely opera performed in Beijing, it is not necessary to follow the modern spelling of the city's name (consider the example of Peking Duck). We should, however, follow the spelling of the main article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Theatre has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * support using "Peking Opera"/"Peking opera", since "Peking" is the more common and likely term, and less likely to engender confusion with operas in the city of Beijing, as opposed to the style. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2012 (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.

Western and Eastern constellations

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * western constellations


 * eastern constellations


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm putting the Category:Western constellations and Category:Eastern constellations categories up for CfD because they are inappropriately used and redundant.
 * We already have Category:Northern constellations and Category:Southern constellations, which make some sense in terms of the standard equatorial coordinate system used in astronomy. However, the Right Ascension coordinate does not have a west or east directions as in the longitudes of the geographic coordinate system. Hence, the so-called western and eastern constellations are undefined in this context.
 * There are Western constellations that were defined in Western civilization, but this is not the nature of the category because the Eastern constellations category also consists of constellations defined in the West. The contents of the Western and Eastern constellation categories are already the standard constellations as defined by the International Astronomical Union, and hence are listed in Category:Constellations. We also have so-called "eastern constellations", as represented by Category:Chinese constellations. (There should be some content provided for Indian constellations, but that's another matter.)
 * Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename →,  → . Now I know that former categories mean constellations used by western and eastern cultures respectively, while latter is lot more connected to navigation. Western hemisphere lies between 12h and 24h right ascensions, while eastern hemisphere lies between 0h and 12h right ascensions. This is analogous to the east-west direction of the sun in the sky in military time. PlanetStar (talk | contribs) 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked for a publication that might use something like this, but I found no match. It doesn't appear to be a normal astronomical convention, and I'm pretty familiar with many of them. Do you have a reliable source for this usage? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this something you just made up or do you have a reliable source? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made-up this system based from the geographical halves. If there are northern and southern hemisphere on Earth, then western and eastern hemisphere are there too, this should apply to celestial sphere. On the celestial sphere, 0h and 12h right ascensions would be dividing lines between western and eastern celestial hemispheres. 0h right ascension or First Point of Aries meridian would be the celestial prime meridian. PlanetStar (talk | contribs) 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think most of the users commenting here understand what is meant by the categorization. The real question being asked, as I interpret it, is where does this system come from? Did you make it up, or is it a system that is found in reliable sources? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read my above comment carefully, you'll understand about how I made up this system. PlanetStar (talk | contribs) 19:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I've read and understood your explanation. It is just something you made up one day and does not reflect general usage. If this was an article I'd call it WP:OR. Since nobody uses it, I'm not clear how this categorization scheme would be useful to anybody. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * delete I have never before heard the terms Western or Eastern constellations. I too would have thought it meant "the constellations of Western Civilization". Tfr000 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete but willing to reconsider if PlanetStar has a good citation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete never encountered such a usage, and in any case, this is a rare usage if it exists, since the common usage is for that of Western civilization / Babylonian tradition for "Western Constellations", and the Indian and Chinese traditions for "Eastern Constellations", so these cannot be kept at these names anyways, since they are not the common meaning of the terms. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Category:Constellations-- The rotation of the earth means that constellations will move acrooss the sky and sometimes be in the east and sometimes in the west.  The grouping of stars into constellations is a human artefact.  There may be different views on how this should be done in the east and the west, and China may differ from India.  There may be a case for having categories according to western usage, Indian usage, and Chinese usage, but if so an appropriate tree needs to be built up.  I susepct that western usage will be the primary one, due to its use by western scientific astronomers, so that there could be categories for constellations according to India usage or Chinese usage.  However, both categories seem to relate to western usage.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Category:Constellations already contains the contents of the Category:Western constellations and Category:Eastern constellations categories. We also have a Category:Chinese constellations. The only reason for the lack of a Category:Indian constellations is because there are no Indian constellation articles. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2012 (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:Tombs and cemeteries in Vietnam

 * 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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Tombs and cemeteries in Vietnam to Category:Tombs in Vietnam; to contain articles on tombs only.
 * Propose deleting Category:Burial monuments and structures in Vietnam (perhaps)
 * Nominator's rationale: The first category is not part of a category tree of Tombs and cemeteries, and (like Category:Tombs in Greece) the rename would be part of the category Category:Burial monuments and structures. This category does not have “by country” subcategories though. Another possibility would be to absorb/upmerge the existing (few) “Tombs by country” categories into “Burial monuments and structures by country” categories, like the existing Category:Burial monuments and structures in Vietnam. This would have the advantage that the country category could be used for other types of burial structures within each country ie Ossuaries, Catacombs used for burials and even Mausoleums. Hugo999 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support renaming and deletion as nominated. Add all categores on deleted parent category to the Tombs category. The supercategory Category:Monuments and memorials contains Category:Monuments and memorials by country, and I do not think there is a need for an intermediate “Burial monuments and structures by country”. The only other categories that combine "cemeteries and tombs" are Category:Ancient Roman tombs and cemeteries in Rome and Category:Cemeteries and tombs in Rome, and these should probably be split too. I think there is scope for a new category:Tombs and will set this up. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment above is OK with me Hugo999 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2012 (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:Wikipedians in red-linked categories

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories to Category:Wikipedians in blue-linked categories
 * Nominator's rationale: One of the members is not in any red-linked categories. However, all are in at least one blue-linked category. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not something that should be tracked in this way. If a page is in a red linked category, that is an error which should be resolved by creating the category or editing the page. Unless this category was automatically updated (which it is not), it won't help with that problem. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Logic error. These pages were in a red linked category. The category was created. That has resolved the superficial problem. Now someone should resolve the problem of the red-linked categories. Incidentally it is facile to suggest that this can be done trivially, ideally it requires someone with template experience and knowledge of the Wikipedian's category tree. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete. User categories exist to assist collaboration, and I can't see how this trivial categ is of any use in collaboration. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I cannot see what the point of this category is. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or replace with soemthing better I might suggest that those adding the category to user pages, perhaps forlornly, thought that some collaborative effort might be made to resolve the RLCs. (Maybe someone would like to ask them? Of course if CBM would like to use his vaunted skills to produce a report and other contributors would like to work on resolving the issues, then that would be cool. But to simply recommend deleting one solution without putting something better in it's place is the height of folly. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete. If I undestand correctly, then the purpose of this category is to try to encourage the creation or emptying of user categories that appear in Special:WantedCategories. It does not actually seem to accomplish that, however, and what it really does is create another report (tracking category, to be precise) to monitor. Furthermore, there are many user categories that should not be created; yet I believe, from past experience, that it is often not worth the effort and drama to try to depopulate them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - If someone wishes to include themselves in some redlinked cat (presumably not in opposition to a previous deletion discussion), then why should we advertise this in a way suggesting that such a cat must be created? Sounds like drama waiting to happen. Let's drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass... (And I have a funny feeling we might be asking: How many legs does a horse have? - jc37 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this might be a useful admin cat for actual articles, but not for user pages. However the initial complain could have been fixed by just removing the non-applicalbe page from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that this repeatedly created and deleted category is populated by users' choice in facetious ironic humour. Typically, by belonging to this red-linked category alone were they qualified to belong to this category.  By collectively populating the category, the members are demonstrating that the existence of the category page is incidental to the function of the category.  To me, this category speaks to the primitive nature of the wiki category system.  I don't know, but I suspect that this category could serve to assist collaboration by attracting and recording Wikipedians interested in these sort of technicalities of the category system.  If so, it would funtion better if left entirely alone. Regarding others' comments...  It seems some people expect a category to have a clear and explicit purpose or else it should be deleted.  This, when we are talking user categories, seems to me to be not based upon any sound logic, and to be unnecessarily repressive.  I suggest that there were never any problems with this category that needed solving.  I now think that it is better to re-delete the categary (in fact, wasn't it previously SALTed?), and leave such userspace odd thing top their own ends without feeling the need to paper over the technical peculiatiries of the currently primitive category system.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carl. Pichpich (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (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:Sport at Scottish and Welsh universities

 * 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/rename, but allow reopening of discussion. There is no question that we don't need both Scotland categories, but what the final name is may still be open to discussion. Let's see this opened again, perhaps with other categories of similar type.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sport at Welsh universities to Category:Student sport in Wales
 * Propose upmerging Category:Sport at Scottish universities to Category:Student sport in Scotland
 * Nominator's rationale: The existing names do not suit the overall category Category:Student sport in the United Kingdom Hugo999 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge and rename per nom, to match parent Category:Student sport in the United Kingdom. Note that the grandparent Category:Student sport by country needs a little cleanup: most of the national categories take the form "Student sport in Foo", but there are a few exceptions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as these categories relate to universities only whereas student can in some circumstances also refer to schoolchildren. I would suggest merging of Category:Student sport in Scotland into Category:Sport at Scottish universities. Cjc13 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The parent category is Category:Student sport though the category name for clubs is Category:University and college sports clubs. There are already several “junior” categories: Category:Youth sport, Category:High school sports, Category:Under-17 sport, Category:Under-20 sport & Category:Children's sport - Hugo999 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The articles seem to use University rather than Student in their titles. Cjc13 (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now all the actual articles and sub-cats use university. If the articles are incorrectly named, this should be fixed first, and then we can fix the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly merge -- The question is what the name should be. I would suggest rename to Category:University sport in Scotland.  PLease relist.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think the "sport" tree is a bit of a mess. and more clarity would be better than less clarity. For one thing, the category names should make much clearer the school type/youth age distinction between them. College/University as opposed to secondary school or elementary school, etc. - jc37 06:02, 13 April 2012 (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:Sex discrimination

 * 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 to delete - jc37 02:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * sex discrimination


 * Nominator's rationale: Covered by Category:Sexism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The nominator also omits to propose an action wrt to nominated category. If it is to be removed, it should be merged to and  rather than deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sex discrimination is one form of sexism, and should be a subcat of.
 * Question what form of sexism does not include discrimination?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To make a caricature of the distinction, thinking that all women are incompetent dimwits is certainly sexist but it's not sex discrimination until you refuse to hire a woman on those grounds. In other words articles such as Kinder, Küche, Kirche or Madonna–whore complex don't really belong in Category:Sex discrimination. (I guess that's my !vote for Keep) Pichpich (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't Affirmative action aka "positive discrimination" (on racial or sexual grounds) also discrimination? Hugo999 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the relevance of that question for the present debate. Pichpich (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably affirmative action is not sexist/racist but could be regarded as discrimination. Hugo999 (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment when the article Sex Discrimination (election candidates) Act of 2002 is in Category:Sexism, it seems that people in general are equating the two terms, and people are not adequately using the sub-category. I have yet to see a good reason for seperating the two categories out, and I am less than convinced that the two proposed articles do not belong in discrimination categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One miscategorised article hardly counts as evidence of a wider confusion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not think people have demonstated a need to distinguish these two subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all sexual discrimination is sexism, and the latter is the term people are more likely to chose. We have two categories that will largely duplicate eachother.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2012 (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:Three-Cornered Conflicts

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Three-Cornered Conflicts (or renaming to Category:Three-cornered conflicts?)
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete (or rename?). This category is defined as wars that had three parties all fighting each other. I'm not sure if this is a neologism or if it is an appropriate way to categorize wars. If kept, perhaps there would be a better name? If kept under the current name, the capitalization should at least be fixed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tentative delete. I search on Google Scholar for "Three-Cornered Conflict" and "Three-Cornered Conflicts", and while the singular form does get 79 hits, very few of them relate to wars. I would not rule out the possibility that there may be some other term which is used in the literature for this type of war, but I don't know whether it exists.  In the absence of any other information, this category looks like original research. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Military history has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if one somehow determines that there are exactly three sides in a particular conflict (i.e., a triangle), a category cannot reflect the relative closeness or distance of each of the corners. A category also cannot take into account the changing dynamics of a conflict – combatants changing allegiances, combatants joining or leaving the conflict, and so on – or multiple dimensions and mixed allegiances within a conflict. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a military history nerd, and I've never seen this term used. It's also not a very useful classification of these wars. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This seems to be a phenomenon that arises in internal conflicts, where two rival insurgencies are fighting the government and often each other too. In Algeria, OAS and FLN were both fighting each other and the French government.  In Colombia, FARC and ELN areboth fighting the government.  In Northern Irleand, the republicans were fighting the British military and the police and the protestant paramilitaries.  The police were trying to control the ptotestant paramilitaries, but I am not sure they were fighting the authorities.  In Yugoslavia, the Muslims, the Croats and the Serbs were all fighting each other, though for the most part it was the Serbs against the rest.  All these fit the category description, so I see no objection to the existence of the category.  Perhaps some one can suggest a better name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify. I think a categorization is too arbitrary and possibly non-defining. On the one hand, why stop with three factions? On the other, all conflicts are multi-factional, and all allies do not have the same goals in mind, e.g. the monarchists and Falangists in the Spanish Civil War. Scope is another problem; Poland and Finland both fought simultaneous invasions from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but World War II is not conventionally considered a three-way conflict.- choster (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - A category like this oversimplifies conflict dynamics in several ways. It is often not an easy task to identify the number of 'sides' in a conflict. The Colombian conflict, for example, involves not only the government, FARC and ELN, but at various times also multiple paramilitary groups, the EPL, M-19 and various smaller groups with unclear or shifting allegiances. During The Troubles, organizations within both the republican and loyalist sides frequently clashed and competed; the Real IRA, for instance, is an Irish republican organization but not really in the same corner as, say, the PIRA, which is openly hostile to RIRA.
 * Delete There are often primary parties and ones acting semi-covertly or at least half-heartedly so it can often be hard to count. Similar view to Black Falcon. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oversimplifying.  No parent article.  Per Nick-D above.  It may happen, but is not a type of war, maybe a battle, or a fight.  Even then, "three-sided" gets decent usage, not three-cornered, which redirects to Vote splitting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2012 (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.