Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 16

< October 15	October 17 >

October 16

Hotel buildings

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hotels completed in the 19th century to Category:Hotel buildings completed in the 19th century
Propose renaming Category:Hotels completed in the 20th century to Category:Hotel buildings completed in the 20th century
Propose renaming Category:Hotels completed in the 21st century to Category:Hotel buildings completed in the 21st century

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hotel is ambiguous (function, structure, business, company, etc), so it would be better to match the parent category where most of these articles came from Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, or more specifically the by year subcategories. If successful, the subcategories would need to be renamed later. This proposal would better match the usage in the majority of the other subcategories in Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unnecessary precision, the main article is hotel and the main cat is Hotels. The primary meaning of "hotel" is building as far as I know. Brandmeister^talk 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that is clear from this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; only hotel buildings can be completed, in reference to construction. The objection to the previous proposal, which I share, was that it is improper to conflate an institution with the building it occupies. By the reasoning of some editors, it seems, the Houses of Parliament would have been established in 1870, when the Houses of Parliament were completed.- choster (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:Hotels opened in the 19th century, etc. In UK, there are "country house hotels", which are gentlemen's mansions that have been converted to hotels. The building may have been completed in (say) 1830, but only opened as a hotel in (say) 1985. To which category does it belong? Putting it either in the 19th or 20th cnetyury category will be highly misleading as to the date when a hotel was built. The same will apply to many hotels taht were not purpose built. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Buildings are built or constructed. Once that defining activity is complete, the completed building can be opened for use. Opening or establishment generally occurs after the building is completed. While some building are purpose built and belong in multiple trees, they can not be forced there by default. As an example, I ran into a hotel that was listed as being established in the 2000's. The building was built in, as I recall 1885 for industrial use, Chamberlain West Hollywood Hotel is another example. So attempting to force an article like that into something that is intended to equate to equate the building as being completed at later time is a flawed convention. There are also a number of commercial buildings where multiple uses are accommodated like Bay Street Emeryville. This can be offices and retail and several floors of hotel. So in a case like that, we would have a commercial building being completed and a hotel established. So trying to categorize based on the assumption that the entire structure is a hotel is wrong. Also note that there are cases, even where purpose built, where the building is completed and it is opened years later, Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria Philippines is an example based on the article content. So clearly the building and its use must be treated separately. Bottom line is that buildings are completed and hotels are opened. The tree here is for building completion and the opening tree is established in. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And to answer your specific question. The answer is obvious, Category:Houses completed in 1830. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename Hotel is usually used to refer to a specific location, whether a single building or a complex of buildings. There is no reason to include "building" in the cat title. The uses of the term "church" are different enough that I would make a different statement on the issue, but each term has to be considered in its actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware that there are multiple cases where several hotel companies operate in a single building? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. This would make these categories consistent with several subcats of Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, for example. It would remove ambiguity when it is clear from parent building and structures categories that buildings are what are what is being documented here. Hotel buildings are 'completed'; hotel businesses are 'established' or 'opened'. Hmains (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really wish we had separate category structures for buildings (objects) and for the businesses. In the case of churches, I'm doubtful that this is possible. But I think it's possible for hotels. But this is going to take editorial work, and likely not something which can be done automatically. - jc37 01:04, 15 November 2012 (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.

Sofia, Bulgaria

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. These categories all relate to the city of Sofia in Bulgaria. However, it is surrounded by Sofia Province, which is categorised under Category:Sofia Province. A disambiguator is needed to avoid confusion and miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bulgaria has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's confusing. Sofia and Sofia Province are separate entities and this is clear in the naming. Also, it's the exact naming used in Bulgarian: Sofia and Oblast Sofia. Unless you mean the province (which does not include the city), you just say Sofia. Working example of this nomenclature: Santiago vs Santiago Province, Chile. I'm very worried that moving the categories to "Sofia (city)" would have to mean a move of the city article too, and that would be bold and unnecessary. — Toдor Boжinov — 20:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they are separate entities, but the category name for the city is currently unclear. This can lead to miscategorisation , which is hard to monitor, and is unrelated to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status of the city.

The example you cite of Santiago is a good one. The city is clearly the primary topic, so the head article Santiago is not disambiguated. However the category is Category:Santiago, Chile, for precisely the same reasons as apply here.

A similar situation exists with Dublin and the surrounding County Dublin: the categories are Category:Dublin (city) and Category:County Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Todor and for consistency with the main article, there is just Sofia and there is Sofia Province, not just Sofia. Brandmeister^talk 23:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dispute that the meaning is "currently unclear." Is there any evidence that anyone takes "Sofia" to refer to anything other than the city? In other words, when English-language newspapers and magazines mention Sofia, do we reasonably assume they refer to the larger area, like Guatemala (vice Guatemala or for that matter Guatemala Department)? I doubt it. After all, no one seriously thinks Category:Milan is intended for the Province of Milan any more than it is intended for Milan, Kansas. Where there is real life potential for confusion, the common name for one entity or the other will typically include its own disambiguator— Quebec City, City of London, Island of Hawaii, the aforementioned County Dublin, and so on; relatively rarely is dab intervention required. Let's keep things simple and not set any precedent for Category:Los Angeles (city), California.- choster (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Choster, your say that "the common name for one entity or the other will typically include its own disambiguator". Obviously, that's inevitable when the two areas are contiguous. Which is why we have Dublin/County Dublin, Durham/County Durham, Santiago/Santiago Province, Chile ... and Sofia/Sofia Province. What exactly is your case for keeping Sofia as the only one of the set with an undisambiguated category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Category:Dublin (city) is certainly over-disambiguated. Category:Durham adheres to my reasoning; it's not necessary to say Category:Durham (city). Santiago is not Category:Santiago (city) so I don't see its relevance.- choster (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Santiago is Category:Santiago, Chile rather than Category:Santiago (city), because there is #Places|more than one city of that name. The reason that it has any disambiguator is because there is more than one entity of that name, even tho one is the primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Catagories should not be ambiguously named, they would collect things that aren't supposed to be in them, regardless of what is the primary topic, because categories are not articles. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I know that BHG has done great work in sorting out categories for the area around Dublin. However, I think her error is with Dublin, which clearly means the city, as opposed to the local authroities that have succeeded the county council for rest of County Dublin. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, that's not the Dublin I know. Is Dublin Airport in Dublin? Or University College Dublin? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Rename since Sofia (disambiguation) does not list the city first, it seems a bit much to assume people will understand the city name standing alone to refer to that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Sofia (disambiguation): there is Sophia, where the city comes second after the Greek word/name it bears itself. Is there anything of remotely the same notability as the Bulgarian capital in this disambiguation list that is spelled Sofia and not Sophia? — Toдor Boжinov — 09:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, than why is it a blue link? Of course, because it does exist, since it redirects somewhere it does exist, and the city is not listed as the top, overwhelming primary usage of the term. The top use of the term is as a female given name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is Category:Chiang Mai and Category:Chiang Mai Province. The same principle should apply there. Coyets (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In looking over Category:Provinces of Bulgaria, I see that it seems that Bulgarian provinces are noted by having the word province in their name. The issue that seems to be needing attention is that both Category:Sofia Province (and Sofia Province), and Category:Sofia (and Sofia) are currently in Category:Provinces of Bulgaria. - jc37 01:06, 5 November 2012 (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:Underworld (band)

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Underworld (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2012 (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:Timbiriche

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Timbiriche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2012 (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:Turbonegro

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Turbonegro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 16 October 2012 (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.

Nuclear power by country

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: reverse merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging

Nominator's rationale: The parent category includes only five (Sweden added) countries, only three of which (Belgium, Sweden and the Czech Republic) have nuclear power stations. The subcategory for Belgium has three articles, two of which are about nuclear power stations so are already in the subcategory Category:Nuclear power stations in Belgium. Countries like China, France or the United States with a significant number of nuclear power stations do not have a similar category, and as most articles by country about nuclear energy relate to nuclear power production the “nuclear power” category by country just duplicates the “nuclear energy” category by country. Hugo999 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not the first time when issues regarding nuclear power versus nuclear energy are discussed. The last and extensive discussion just one year ago is here. That discussion is still highly relevant and lot of pro and contra arguments are presented. That time there was understanding that some standardization of these categories are needed; however, no consensus was reached. There was also understanding that the discussion involves also broader discussion power versus energy. If the proposal will gain a support, also parrent categories Category:Nuclear power and Category:Nuclear energy should be merged. Also if merged, the same principle should be applied for other power and energy categories, e.g. merging category:Solar power and category:Solar energy (and their ...by country... categories). Also, it should be mentioned that in the case of wind power and wind energy the categories were merged other way around (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_3#Category:Wind_energy). Beagel (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll wait to !vote for a while. But I agree with your basic points. These categories are more about the power industry and not the energy potential. It that is the case, then the current names are correct and the question that needs asking is, should this be a reverse merge? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to a reverse merge that adds any real content, Delete Category:Nuclear power in Belgium and Category:Nuclear power in Albania, Upmerge Category:Nuclear power in the United Arab Emirates to both parents and Delete Category:Nuclear power in the Czech Republic after upmerging the single article to Category:Nuclear power by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Every rock in the ground is full of nuclear energy. The categories are about controlled nuclear power: getting that energy to flow in useful ways, particularly converting it to electrical power. There's no point in merging the category to the wrong target.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reverse merge and add many additional changes. Category:Nuclear power and its subcats should only include information about the generation of electricity and the like from nuclear power plants. Category:Nuclear energy should contain most of what is currently contains but add Category:Nuclear power (with all its power plants as a subcategory. This would clarify the entire subject of 'nuclear' for our readers. We then have the science 'nuclear energy' with its implementing technology 'nuclear power'. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- these categories are (I presume) about the generation of electric power. Nuclear energy (save as a parent to this) should be about other applications than electricity generation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge of the content but keep both for the categories tree structure. As it was said by some other editors, these categories' entries are about generation of electric power and therefore should be categorized in the Nuclear power in foo categories. At the same tie, Nuclea power in foo should be narrowly defined and include only entirs about articles about nuclear power generation in foo (e.g. Nuclear power stations in foo categories etc). At the same time, Nuclear power in foo should be a child category for Nuclear energy in foo category, which in addition to nuclear power should include also other nuclear energy related articles (e.g. nuclear fuel production, uranium mining, etc) per Peterkingiron. Of course, most of these categories have at the moment a rather limited number of entries but it is still potentially useful for developing a proper categories tree. Beagel (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not keen on having a third category for most countries, ie categories in both Category:Nuclear power by country and Category:Nuclear energy by country as well as Category:Nuclear technology by country. Most countries have few articles on nuclear power and nuclear energy and the subjects overlap; eg the article Nuclear energy in Belgium is similar to say the article Nuclear power in Romania, while the Romanian article includes radioactive waste disposal which relates to the nuclear energy category. Hence I would prefer one country category for nuclear power and nuclear energy, and nuclear energy is the more inclusive category. Nuclear power stations and nuclear power companies have their own “by country” categories. Hugo999 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If only two categories to be kept, these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country and Category:Nuclear technology by country. However, for the more systematic categories' tree I would prefer to keep all free categories and the stuercture of these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country → Category:Nuclear energy by country → Category:Nuclear technology by country. Beagel (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Peterkingiron.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2012 (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:The Rebel albums

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Rebel albums to Category:Ben Wallers albums

Nominator's rationale: Per The Rebel and Ben Wallers —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2012 (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.

Ring roads

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 as nominated. There was some support for making the US an exception, but no clear consensus to do so. So I close this as rename all to "ring roads" without prejudice to an immediate further discussion on the US (and any countries for which an exception might be made). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orbital roads --> Category:Ring roads
Nominating for consistency a) with the parent article - Ring road and b) with the articles in the categories, the majority of which have "Ring road" in the title. "Moscow ring roads" and "London ring roads" are nominated for consistency in format with the parent catetgories. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - To match the main article, even though I would prefer the term "beltway" for the main article and the categories. Dough 48 72 15:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there any local usage issues in play here? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that there are. In the US, we have "beltways", and in the UK, they have "orbitals" or "orbital roads". I would prefer that the category names match the regional usages instead of falling into one nomenclature choice only. Imzadi 1979 → 04:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - To match main article, and the articles populating the category. Ring road seems to be the primary use for all but US. The phrase "orbital road" isn't even mentioned in the main article - it specifies that "orbital motorways" are a small subset of ring roads, and none of the examples of these given have that in their article name. No problem with a localised name for the US one though if that is preferred. --Qetuth (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- In UK, ring road is an acceptable term. Birmingham has Inner, Middle and Outer Ring Roads. London has north and south circular roads, but also an orbital motorway (M25 road). Gloucester, Stourbridge, DErby and many other towns have ring roads. Birmingham and Manchester are also encircled by motorways, but they are not classified as a single road and are not usually referred to either as ring roads or orbital motorways. I cannot explain the reasons for the differing nomenclature, but "ring road" seems acceptable to me as an Englishman. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cmt And then there is the fact that in the US these are called beltways or loops, never rings or orbitals. So the US category should get its own local name also. Hmains (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The American one is the only one I was concerned with - I nominated it with the others because I was unsure what name to give it. Perhaps renaming it to Category:Beltways in the United States would be appropriate? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Ring road is an understood term in the United States, and is even used in some cases. It works well enough and there is no compelling reason for it to be a specifically different term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Beltways for the US, ring roads for everywhere else. –Fredddie ™ 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I was in at the start of this discussion here supporting this proposal. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 20:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Beltways for the US where 'ring road' is an unknown term; ring roads for everywhere else to match the articles. Hmains (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except the US which should be to Category:Beltways in the United States per local usage. Which form does Canada use? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just asked a Canadian friend, they call them "ring roads". --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. So support all but the US one. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (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:RMIT University

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:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This closure was questioned by two editors who posted on my talk page. I have replied to them with a detailed explanation of why I closed the discussion this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:RMIT University to Category:RMIT

Nominator's rationale: The official name of the university is the "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" (according to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act 2010 No. 3 of the Parliament of Victoria), and of which the common name used is "RMIT". The names RMIT University and RMIT International University, Vietnam are registered trading names of the two regional branches of the university (as outlined in RMIT's policies and procedures for trading names and corporation company formation policy). "RMIT University" (as the category is currently named) only relates to one branch of the university. As the category in question is used for pages relating to both branches of RMIT, as well as the university as a whole, it should therefore be reflected in the use of the common name "RMIT". NouvelleAuteur (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology as RMIT is not a globally known acronym. Oculi (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when does an acronym need to be "globally known"? In any case, it's pretty straightforward to find non-Australian sources that use the acronym. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. None of the supporting links of nom ever mention 'RMIT' as an official name. It offers a choice of these two names:

“Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology” the name given to the University under its establishing legislation. This is the name which should be used in contractual and other formal documentation involving the University.
“RMIT University” the registered Business Name of the University. This name is also registered as a Trade Mark which incorporates the University’s distinctive pixel.

Per this and the noms point about the Vietnam branch, I think #1 is the better choice. --Qetuth (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Create any necessary redirects/cat-redirects to cover abbreviations. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology through precedent of Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What precedent? The category is at Massachusetts Institute of Technology because that's what the article is titled. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in agreement with all above. Suggested "RMIT" initially as it is the common acronym shared between the branches and is used generally by the university. However, renaming to official name is understandably more appropriate. NouvelleAuteur (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. There's a reason the article is at RMIT University – because it's the common name of the university and it's in no way ambiguous. The official name of the institution carries little weight and rightly so. It is independent, reliable sources that are of relevance and there are more than twice as many Google Scholar results for "RMIT University" as there are for "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology". To be frank, it's a bit bizarre to see people using the existence of the Vietnam branch as a reason to rename the parent category. That would be like renaming Category:Monash University because it has branches in Malaysia and South Africa. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2012 (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:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

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, with "former" kept as a subcat. - jc37 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

Delete Newly created category merely duplicated content in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. As you can see from: Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in France, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Spain, Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy, just to select a few at random, none of the other categories have 'current' in front of them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. There is also Category:Current dioceses in Ireland, which should be upmerged. Oculi (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland has no files, but has the subcategories Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland and Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. A useful distinction, not an irrational one. Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Provided Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland is kept distinct, I have no objection to Oculi's proposal. In that case, of course, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland is just as prone to staling as Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland, something to be kept in mind in view of rumoured proposals to reduce the number of dioceses in Ireland quite soon. It might be useful to include in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland a hatnote indicating that the historical ones no longer in existence are to be placed in the distinct subcategory. Esoglou (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator emptied this category out of process. It was necessary for me to re-populate it, which he ought to have done pending a CFD decision. It is factually incorrect to say that it is new: it has existed for many months. The statement that it is a duplicate is factually incorrectly. The scope is limited to "Dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church situated in the island of Ireland that are still extant." The main difference between this scope and the scope of its parent is that it excludes former dioceses. Happily, all these dioceses are contained in the Category: Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. Given Ireland's long and convoluted religious history, it's hardly surprising that there should be a lot of entries in this latter category. The same tree structure exists for dioceses of the Church of Ireland (Current and Former as children of COI dioceses in Ireland). The existance of this cat detracts not an iota from the parent cat of Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. The comparability with other counties (and that tree structure) remains unchanged. What is the real defect in this cat that the proposal purports to remedy? Where is the case to say that this is not a good and useful category? To delete this cat would mean that readers would be confronted with a cat that listed all dioceses in Ireland, without any ability to see at a glance whether some of them are defunct or not. There is ample precedent for "Former Foo" categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is objecting to the 'Former' categories. The 'former' ones should stay where they are and the current ones should be moved back to the top level, namely Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. This is the usual way of organising categories. Oculi (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per Oculi. The word "current" is prone to staling and the whole Category:Current dioceses in Ireland is a non-standard categorization. Brandmeister^talk 23:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge It doesn't seem sensible to have a structure in which Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland contains nothing but subcats. By and large, the pattern is to have a "former" subcat, with the implication that the unqualified parent contains all the current membership. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Oculi and Mangoe. It's quite sufficient to subcategorise the former dioceses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Brandmeister says that the category is not standard. This is not true. Look at the analogous Category:Current monarchies which has a "Former" sibling and a "Monarchies" parent. If its good enough for monarchies, why isn't it good enough for dioceses? Ditto Category:Current foreign ministers and Category:Current Brigades of the British Army and Category:Current ministerial offices in Victoria (Australia). Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When brought to the attention of CfD, "Current" categories have almost always been done away with. The three categories you mention are not part of any wider system of "Current" categories, and being anomalous, will be dealt with in due time. IOW, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here.- choster (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge keeping also Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. I think we do something similar with Parliamentary constituencies (in UK categorisation by county). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I am also unconvinced we need a former category. In general former categories are highly discoraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note if Johnpacklambert's suggestion is actioned, then neither this cat nor the Former cat would exist. This would leave all dioceses - both current and former - in just 1 cat together. Please explain to me how this would be an improvement on the status quo. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody supports Johnpacklambert's suggestion. Several have spoken against it. Esoglou (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as proposed, with “Former” as a subcategory (and am dubious about other recent “current” categories for present officeholders eg Category:Current foreign ministers. If someone wants to write a LIST of current foreign ministers, OK. As with buildings and structures where we have say Category:Power stations (ie current) with subcategories for former and maybe proposed power stations. “Former” is generally a subcategory of the main category, which does not have “Current” in the title. Hugo999 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2012 (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.