Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:57, 10 March 2012

March 10

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:EAA competitions

Propose renaming Category:EAA competitions to Category:European Athletic Association competitions

Propose renaming Category:EAA Meetings to Category:European Athletic Association meetings

Nominator's rationale: To expand the ambiguous acronym 'EAA', which applies to several entities other than the European Athletic Association that might or do organize competitions of various types – e.g., the Estonian Academy of Arts, European Association of Archaeologists, Experimental Aircraft Association and others. -- Black Falcon 20:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename for clarity per nom as parent article is European Athletic Association. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom and MilborneOne. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 23:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Windows Phone 7 games

Propose renaming Category:Windows Phone 7 games to Category:Windows Phone games

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The rename of the article should replace "Windows Phone 7 games" to "Windows Phone games" because the current name for Windows Phone does not use the word 7. WPSamson (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Variety entertainment

Propose renaming Category:Variety entertainment to Category:Variety shows

Nominator's rationale: The main article is Variety show. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 11:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Rannochians

Propose renaming Category:Old Rannochians to Category:People educated at Rannoch School

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Misplaced Pages is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in Scotland.

Rannoch School was a small school (only 300 pupils at its peak) which existed for only 43 years, and the "Old Rannochian" terminology has not achieved wide usage. There are no hits on Google News for either "Old Rannochian" or "Old Rannochians", and only one hit each on Google Books for "Old Rannochian" and "Old Rannochians". (By contrast, the best-known "Old Fooian" term is "old Etonian", with 4290 hits on GoogleNews.)

The term is also ambiguous, because "Rannochian" appears to be a demonym for "Rannoch", the school having been located in Kinloch Rannoch, beside Loch Rannoch, and the wider area of Rannoch is probably best known for the huge Rannoch Moor.

The rename will assist navigation and reduce the risk of miscategorisation ... and it will cause no loss of information, because the "Old Rannochian" term is explained in a hatnote in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDS. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. Ericoides (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Highest points by country first-level subdivision

• Category:Highest points of Brazilian states‎
• Category:Highest points of English counties‎ ‎
• Category:Highest points of Indian states‎
• Category:Highest points of Irish counties‎
• Category:Highest points of Norwegian counties‎
• Category:Highest points of Scottish counties‎
• Category:Highest points of Swiss cantons‎
• Category:Highest points of U.S. states‎
  • Category:High points in Florida‎
    • Category:High points in Monroe County, Florida‎
  • Category:United States National Park high points‎
• Category:Highest points of Welsh counties‎

I propose that these categories all be deleted. Most of these geographical regions already have lists of highest points, and this I feel is sufficient. These categories I don't see as useful at all basically, because when you look at one of the categories, you won't see what county each geographical location belongs to. For that you need to go to the list article. Other than it looking nice at the bottom of each article that is placed into these categories, I don't see their utility. __meco (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. —Keenan Pepper 09:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Firstly you may not be able to see what county each geographical location belongs to immediately, although those familiar with the area will probably have a good idea, and many users have pop-ups, making the information obvious when hovering over the name. In other words, there is no need to go to the list article. There is a problem with the Scottish version in that the counties were replaced by council areas 15 years ago, but it wouldn't be hard to re-name and update - but then there wouldn't be a list without further effort, making the category even more useful. Ben MacDui 10:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep highest points – we categorise by defining characteristics and the ones I checked stated in the first line 'X is the highest point in county Y'. 'High points' sounds rather arbitrary: how many are allowed in Category:High points in Monroe County, Florida? Oculi (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Upmerge Category:High points in Monroe County, Florida‎ to Category:High points in Florida‎. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Like Oculi, I find this fact defining at some level. However do we need to categorize the highest point in every city? So I wonder if we are going to see this having arbitrary inclusion criteria? If not, the membership in a lot of these categories will be small if inclusion is truly the highest point since there is only one highest point in Florida. So while not opposed to the categories I wonder if the readers would be better served by Listifying these? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per MacDui. Ericoides (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:NBA player with no awards or highlights

Propose renaming Category:NBA player with no awards or highlights to Category:Basketball player with no awards or highlights

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The template is now used for all basketball players not for NBA players only. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 08:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. When did we start categorizing by what a person is not? I thought this was listed somewhere but WP:OC#TRIVIAL seems to also apply. Also, isn't highlights ambiguous?Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - this category is silly. No need to categorize players in this way. Rikster2 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Art by P J Crook

Category:Art by P J Crook - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This only has one subcat and is the subcat of another cat (itself nominated for CfD) which contains the same subcat--why does this scheme exist...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I won't presume the outcome of the other nomination but, even with the current category structure, this one isn't grouping anything. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete – this is getting silly. Oculi (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:P J Crook

Category:P J Crook - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Redundant version of Category:P. J. Crook--which is nominated earlier. Note that that category was emptied out of process and this one was created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the following rationale: "Insofar as WP editors are not morons, the discussion of the idiotic discussion of the misnamed category can be applied here, so no duplicate CfD lunacy appears here." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Koavf still doesn't demonstrate having read, remembered, and being able to rewrite in his own words the salient proposition from the lede, namely

  • the artist's name is "P J Crook", not "P. J. Crook".

  I would wish that another editor would let the discussion at the misnamed cat "P. J. Crook" (sic.) conclude and then apply that conclusion here. To spell it out, wishfully for Koafv, if that discussion concludes that the misnamed category can stay, then save this correctly named category and kill that abomination, which is now empty, per my competence; if that discussion concludes that the misnamed category should be deleted, then delete both, obviously.

  Regardless, we should not have a category with the erroneous periods.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete – there is (so far) exactly 1 valid category for PJC, namely Category:Album covers by P J Crook. Oculi (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ice Hockey European Championships

Propose renaming Category:Ice Hockey European Championships to Category:IIHF Ice Hockey European Championships

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Excessively generic name will result in miscategorization of any European ice hockey championships here. This is the IIHF championship named "Ice Hockey European Championships", so should be indicated as such. There are other European ice hockey championships. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The main article is at Ice Hockey European Championships. If the IP wants this category to be renamed, than xe should propose that the main article to be moved first via requested moves. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 11:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • From CFDs here, categories are frequently named in a manner that is less ambiguous than the main articles, because categories require maintenance. Excessively generic category names just result in unrelated material being categorized together. There are championships for European ice hockey that do not involve the event described at Ice Hockey European Championships, so ambiguity is excessive in a title that can be seen as simply descriptive. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)