Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 28#Category:Statistics qualifications

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < March 27

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | March 29 >

= March 28 =

== Category:North Group (Trujillo) ==

: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. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:North Group (Trujillo) to :Category:to be decided

:Nominator's rationale: Rename to one of two options:

::1 - The key article is North Group, so a rename to {{cl|North Group}} is better than the current name.

::2 - All other categories for Trujillo follow the standard of {{cl|Trujillo, Peru}}; as such, {{cl|North Group (Trujillo, Peru)}} is also better than the current name.

:Personally, I favour Option 1, but either would be an improvement. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep -- categories sometimes need disambiguators where articles have none. The categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands, not Birmingham, to keep Birmingham, Al out of them. I am surprised that there is no other "North Group", and so would discourage 1. On the other hand, there is no need for a disambiguator to be any longer than needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose option 1/neutral on other. This needs some amount of disambiguation. I am not sure if it might need more than it has, but it needs at least what it has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2013 (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:UCI Road World Cup ==

: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:UCI Road World Cup (men). – Fayenatic London 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:UCI Road World Cup to :Category:UCI Men's Road World Cup

:Nominator's rationale: To distinguish from the ongoing UCI women's world cup category. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2013 (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:Road bicycle races ==

: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, but move all contents to the subcategory :Category:Men's road bicycle races.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Road bicycle races to :Category:Men's road bicycle races

:Nominator's rationale: In this category are only men's races listed. There is also a category for women's races (:Category:Women's cycle races). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2013 (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.

== Grand viziers ==

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalise per Grand Vizier, List of Ottoman Grand Viziers and parent {{cl|Grand Viziers of the Ottoman Empire}}; change monarch name to match main article Suleiman the Magnificent. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose : Vizier was a title. It was equivalent to modern government minister and grand vizier was the equivalent of Prime minister. In WP article Prime minister the word minister is written with a small p. So why to capitalize vizier ? (Well the article Grand Vizier may need moving , but that's another story.) I also oppose moving Suleyman I to Suleyman the Magnificient in cat. Most other sultans (Mehmet II, Selim I etc.) also have epithets. But their cats doesn't use the epithets. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Copy of discussion at Speedy renaming page}}

{{collapse bottom}}

  • Sorry, I should have posted the above discussion here more promptly. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom to match the main article. The article on Prime Minister will probably have to be moved. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reaname to follow the capitalisation of the main article. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • REname all -- This is the correct capitalisation, as much as Prime Minister. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename per correct capitalization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I commented above in the speedy nomination. I'm fine with the capitalization as long as it is consistently applied through all these categories. It should indeed be :Category:Grand Viziers of Suleiman the Magnificent per {{cat|Suleiman the Magnificent}}/Suleiman the Magnificent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2013 (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:Films based on works by Huh Young-man ==

: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. The article has moved back to match the category name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Films based on works by Huh Young-man to :Category:Films based on works by Heo Yeong-man

:* Propose renaming :Category:Television programs based on works by Huh Young-man to :Category:Television programs based on works by Heo Yeong-man

:* Propose renaming :Category:Adaptations of works by Huh Young-man to :Category:Adaptations of works by Heo Yeong-man

:Nominator's rationale: These were speedily renamed to the spelling "Huh Young-man," but the article is at Heo Yeong-man.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Rename : I agree with Mike Selinker. Refreshersss (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • HOLD. The main article was moved on 26 March apparently without discussion. The spelling Heo Yeong-man may be technically correct but Huh Young-man has 20 times as many web hits. I will start a RM at Talk:Heo Yeong-man. – Fayenatic London 14:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, I didn't know that. OK, let's hold off here until the RM is done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename now, as the RM has been closed as "don't move" the article. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone has just moved it anyway, on the grounds that Huh Young-man is more commonly used. That seems right to me because WP:UE says, "if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic". – Fayenatic London 23:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep' Our article currently sues the names that the categories currently use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2013 (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:Statistics qualifications ====

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Statistics qualifications to :Category:Statistics education

:Nominator's rationale: Seems to be an example of over categorisation. Three of the 4 articles in this cat are already in the parent cat (Statistics education) Illia Connell (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Upmerge. Only one is a qualification and that is already in {{cl|Professional titles and certifications}}. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • merge per nom. Three entries plainly belong in the education cat rather than here, and the fourth is not enough to rest a category on. "Qualifications" is vague and potentially misleading. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a clear distinction in topics, with reasonable scope for expansion of qualfications in other countries. Unfortunate blurring of scope by incorrect additions can be remedied. 81.98.35.149 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I note that you have removed two today; as they are in the head category this is not a problem, but it's generally not appropriate to remove pages during a category discussion. As for the scope for expansion: the category could always be re-created once there are sufficient articles to justify it. I would have no objection to redirecting it in the meantime, to make it slightly easier to re-create it if & when needed. – Fayenatic London 23:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Re-categorisation of articles has ALWAYS been allowed during discussions, particularly since editors usually only look at the aticldes they are editing, not the category listing which is where the notice is. The only constraint is "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." The two articles were clearly misclassified. 81.98.35.149 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge The current category is too small to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2013 (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.

== Al Ahli SC (Doha) ==

: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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Al-Ahly Doha to :Category:Al Ahli SC (Doha)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Al-Ahly Doha managers to :Category:Al Ahli SC (Doha) managers

:* Propose merging :Category:Al-Ahli (Doha) footballers to :Category:Al-Ahly Doha players

:* Propose renaming :Category:Al-Ahly Doha players to :Category:Al Ahli SC (Doha) players

:Nominator's rationale: per Al Ahli SC (Doha). – Michael (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2013 (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.