| Revision as of 10:21, 19 March 2012 editAndy Dingley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,332 edits →Category:Albums by recording artist and cover artist← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:28, 19 March 2012 edit undoKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)39,688 edits →Category:Matrices: OpposeNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| *'''Support''' clearly ambiguous per Good OlFactory. ] (]) 09:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | *'''Support''' clearly ambiguous per Good OlFactory. ] (]) 09:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''REname''' to match ], but purge of any other kind of matrix, if necessary creating further categories for other kinds. ] is a disambiguation article. ] (]) 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | *'''REname''' to match ], but purge of any other kind of matrix, if necessary creating further categories for other kinds. ] is a disambiguation article. ] (]) 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose'''. This is stupid even for this place, apparently a transcription for a lunatics' asylum on some possible world. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Please add the newest nominations to the top --> | <!-- Please add the newest nominations to the top --> | ||
Revision as of 10:28, 19 March 2012
| < March 18 | March 20 > |
|---|
March 19
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Current directors of Royal Bank of Canada
- Propose merging Category:Current directors of Royal Bank of Canada to Category:Directors of Royal Bank of Canada
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. We generally don't divide occupational categories into "current" vs. "former" categories. These can be upmerged to the timeless Category:Directors of Royal Bank of Canada, which can contain current and former directors. Good Ol’factory 08:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Most current/former categories were merged some time back. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Albums by recording artist and cover artist
- Category:Albums by recording artist and cover artist - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Consider this a test case for the sole subcategory: Category:King Crimson album covers by P. J. Crook. That was nominated for deletion (by me) with no consensus. As I argued there, this is a trivial intersection and really serves no purpose for navigation. What does everyone else think of this as a scheme? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. These types of categories seem way too specific. Only the categories for albums by recording artist and albums by cover artist need to exist, without the extra-specific spawn thereof. In all or most of the categories for albums by recording and cover artist, there would be few articles anyways. The two categories by themselves would work fine. Backtable concerning my deeds. 07:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Besides Crook & King Crimson, Roger Dean (artist) and Yes (band) form a notable collaboration, which is documented with an in-line quotation from Yes guitarist Steve Howe in the Roger Dean article, as noted by Andy Dingley earlier. The collaboration between Yes and Dean forms a second subcategory of this category. Furthermore, in the discussion of the category "King Crimson album covers by P J Crook,
- editor Andy Dingley explained that, even in the genre of progressive rock, there were other important examples of collaborations between musical and visual artists.
- This category was proposed as an idea whose time had come also by editor Mercurywoodrose.
- Categorizer Koafv/Justin should consider reviewing WP:POINT as well as reading comments in earlier discussions, to avoid further waisting my and Andy's time, which is much more valuable than his, by any measure. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- But simplify to "Albums by recording and cover artists". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There may be an argument for a category,'album covers by P J Crook,' (which may or may not result in the same entries) but to intersect with the artist as a category scheme would create unnecessary category clutter. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Yes, in almost every case this would be a one-member intersection of no real interest. However in a few cases, there has been a long-term and distinct collaboration between two artists. Mostly these took place with older bands, back in the days of 12" vinyl when cover art mattered, hence the emphasis on prog rock. Apart from the prog rock though, one of the best-known would be Joy Division / New Order and Peter Saville. If these were collaborations between singers and song-writers, or between two visual artists, we'd recognise them. We should recognise this cross-discipline collaboration too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Upmerging Maccabiah Games cricketers
- Propose upmerging
- Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers by country
- Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of Australia
- Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of Great Britain
- Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of India
- Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of South Africa
- Category:Cricketers at the Maccabiah Games by year
- Category:Cricketers at the 1997 Maccabiah Games
- Category:Cricketers at the 2005 Maccabiah Games
- Category:Cricketers at the 2009 Maccabiah Games
- Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing all these categories be upmerged into Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers because they are simply too few notable cricketers who have played at the Maccabiah Games for them to be divided up by nationality or when they played. Most of these categories have one or two members, the most is five. If they are all upmerged, I believe Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers would hold a total of nine articles, hardly an impossibility to navigate. P.S. – I've never proposed an upmerge before so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Jenks24 (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I have grave doubts as to whether these categories should exist at all. They appear to be "Performance by performer" categories, which we do not allow for the film/theatre/TV. I do not see why they should be allowed for sports. I would make an exception for the Olympic Games. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Parent abduction
- Category:Parent abduction - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one entry. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Parental child abduction - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, even more so since the one subcat should not be in it. Category:Child abduction and the parent(!) article covers the topic -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Two similar nominations amalgamated. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Merge both to Category:Child abduction. Abduction by a non-custodial parent is a significant problem, particualrly as different countries take different views of how custody should be awarded. However, the children abducted will rarely be notable. The confidentiality of child proceedings in UK measn it is often only reported here, if the judge allows that. Nevertheless, the categories are too small to warrant their separate existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Novels about rape and revenge
- Category:Novels about rape and revenge - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. We cannot categorize novels according to every pair of topics they contain. LeSnail (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom, not delete. I have real doubts as to the coherence and objectivity of all the "works about" tree, but insofar as it is kept, the nom is right that combining pairs of topics is a recipe for chaos. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- Apparnetly emptied out of process -- accordingly delete and upmerge come to the same thing. Whatever the situation we do not need this. It is an unnecssary intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Matrices
- Propose renaming Category:Matrices to Category:Matrices (mathematics)
- Nominator's rationale: Main page is at Matrix (mathematics). LeSnail (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unless there is a good reason for using Category:Matrices for something else. Category:Matrices (mathematics) is unnecessarily long otherwise. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Matrix is highly ambiguous, and so too is the plural "Matrices". I don't find the proposed name too long: I've seen much longer category names that are still acceptable. Good Ol’factory 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The rationale is based on busy-work, not any actual need. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- What does this mean? Why is there no need to be non-ambiguous? Good Ol’factory 08:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support clearly ambiguous per Good OlFactory. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- REname to match Matrix (mathematics), but purge of any other kind of matrix, if necessary creating further categories for other kinds. Matrix is a disambiguation article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is stupid even for this place, apparently a transcription for a lunatics' asylum on some possible world. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)