Trichome

thcscience_admin
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16[edit]

Category:Semi-Prequel films[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Semi-Prequel films to Category:Prequel films
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't think the distinction between a "prequel film" and a "semi-prequel film" is distinct or defined enough to subcategorize in this way. We have an article on prequel, but not one on semi-prequel; notably, prequel itself doesn't refer to the concept of a "semi-prequel". We should be able to just group these together. (I also have questions about Category:Interquel films—but not knowing enough about this particular type of film, maybe someone else could take that one up?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Google searching the term 'semi-prequel' for books, news and scholarly articles suggests that it is a rarely-used term, and it isn't mentioned in the articles except for this category listing. So the creation and application of this category appears to be original research. --RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (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:St. John's University[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:St. John's University to Category:St. John's University (New York)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2009 (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:Wikipedian singer-songwriters[edit]

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.
In this case we are dealing with a concept which is accepted to exist, that of the Singer-songwriter. The real question is whether it is an aid to collaboration or not. On the negative side, the category at present has only one member. Add this to the fact that while there is a Category:Wikipedian singers, there is no Category:Wikipedian songwriters. On the other hand, we do have Category:Singer-songwriters - is this not a category tree which self-identified Singer-songwriters would collaborate in developing? Furthermore, this category, though of small size, is a new creation - could it not be left to be populated, so that in a few months time we can better gauge its usefulness to the project?
After considering the debate I have been persuaded that this is an irrelevant intersection for collaboration. The fact of being both a singer and a songwriter is irrelevant to the question of collaboration, whether to Category:Singer-songwriters, Category:Singers, or Category:Songwriters. What we are dealing with here is a confluence of two facts, that of being a singer and that of being a songwriter. While sympathetic to the idea that 'user' categories should be given a little leeway, as is userspace, I have seen no argument that there is a unique 'singer-songwriter' perspective which can be brought to bear on collaboration on in this area.
Xdamrtalk 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural re-listing based on the outcome of this deletion review discussion. The category in question was originally named "Category:User singer-songwriters" and was deleted as a result of this discussion at CfD under the justification of naming conventions (subsequently fixed), and because "categorizing by profession [was not] a good idea" (excerpted from nominator's original statement). The discussion is being relisted because many participants in the DRV (including the deleting admin) thought that a discussion with more participants was warranted based on very low participation in the first CfD. As this is a procedural listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an aid to collaboration among those editors interested in creating vocal music. Alansohn (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although at present there is a lone collaborator. ('Singer-songwriter' is not necessarily a profession.) Occuli (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This should be deleted for several reasons. First, how would this achieve more collaboration than Category:Wikipedian singers and Category:Wikipedian songwriters (currently a redlink) separately? This seems to be merely an unneeded category intersection. Sure, there is a article on Singer-songwriter, but that is a lone article (there are plently of individual artists in the singer-songwriter category, but I think it is extremely unrealistic to think Wikipedians in the user category would be willing to collaborate on all the pages there). There's no indication that users in this category could be reasonably expected to collaborate on anything more than this lone page, and per previous consensus we shouldn't have user categories that only help collaboration on a very small number of pages (else we would have a article to user category ratio of 1:1). For areas with few pages related to it, past consensus has determined that collaboration is better served on the talk page of said article rather than creating a category grouping. Second, and IMO more importantly, How would this category foster collaboration in the first place? Keep in mind that per Wikipedia:User categories, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia.", so the only possible justification for keeping this category would be that it facilitates collaboration for improvement of the encyclopedia. Why on Earth are we making the logical leap that just because someone is a singer-songwriter, they would be more likely to collaborate on the singer-songwriter article? Yes, there is a whole Category:Wikipedians by profession category tree, but my first points in that this is a category intersection and too small of a topic for collaboration uniquely distinguish this from the others as requiring deletion. That being said, I think everything else in that category needs to be dealt with as well, I'm thinking a rename to change all of those categories to a "by interest" naming convention, as to inclue those who are interested in the profession but aren't necessarily practicing in it (as the logic behind keeping such categories would be no different between the two groups). VegaDark (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what your goal of mentioning this is. The purpose of the musical instrument categories is so that a public domain composure can be recreated to allow Wikipedians to download the song, and has really nothing to do with this category that I can come up with. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark. Wow—that pretty much sums it up. I don't know what else I can add. I don't think there is a good case to be made that this aids in collaboration. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a mistake to constrain the use of categories to one definition. That is a counter-wiki attitude. You should not assume that there is not a purpose that you haven’t considered. It is a mistake to constrain methods of collaboration to the methods that you understand.
As a user category, it won’t confuse our readership. Here is a purpose, a reason why such categories should be left alone: Most wikipedians have little understanding of how categories work and their implication, and user categories are a way to allow wikipedians to experiment. In the absence of harm, play categories should be given leeway in userspace for educational purposes.
Some questions:
There’s only one member in this category? How can I find out how many members it had last week?
Why is it alleged that a category intersection and is too small? Too small for what? Is there a performance issue? An only-one-member category is an implied request to find other members. There are many important empty categories at any one moment, why should this be forbidden for user categories? Ie. Why should the number of members have relevance to whether a category should exist?
Even if the ratio of user categories to articles became large, why is that a problem? What is the ratio today?
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • user categories are a way to allow wikipedians to experiment. In the absence of harm, play categories should be given leeway in userspace for educational purposes. - This is your opinion, and it is one that goes against the guideline WP:User categories. As I've already quoted from that guideline, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." It does not say "Go ahead and create categories "as an experiment", even if it doesn't support collaboration". Also, you say "in the absense of harm..." I will point you to WP:HARMLESS. The very nature of allowing user categories that don't support collaboration to stay can indeed be harmful. As for "play categories should be given leeway in userspace for educational purposes", I'm not quite sure what you mean here. First of all, there are no userspace categories, there are only category-space categories, so I assume your "in userspace" comment means "to be used in userspace". Second, I'm not sure what "should be given leeway" exactly means. Are you suggesting we ignore the guideline requiring user categories to support collaboration, or are you merely saying we should broadly interpret potential collaborative value for user categories? Even under a broad interpretation I don't think this category can support collaboration effectively, because the subject of the category is too narrow of a subject (which I beleive you misinterpreted my comments to mean a small number of users in the category). I would agree that (for at least purposes of this category), the number of users in the category is not relevant whatsoever in the arguement for deletion. There could be 1 or 1000 users in the category and either way it would have no bearing on the rationale I gave for deletion. I said the scope of the category is too small (that is, the number of articles that users in the category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on because of their category grouping), not the number of users. What articles other than Singer-songwriter do you think users in this category could be reasonably expected to collaborate on? (as I said in my original rationale I would disagree that this category could support collaboration even on this article, but for the purposes of this argument we will assume that it does). Surely such users can't be reasonably expected to collaborate on each individual musical artist in Category:Singer-songwriters (if that was the purpse of this category, then I would suggest a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in singer-songwriters). As for your last question, categories more efficiently group pages when there is a minimum requirement on the number of pages expected to populate the category. This is true for both user and article categories, as you see article categories regularly deleted as having too small of a scope. The ratio per se isn't the real issue, it is merely signifying that the scope for each category would be way too small if we allowed a user category meant for collaborating on each individual article. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • “user categories are a way to allow wikipedians to experiment. In the absence of harm, play categories should be given leeway in userspace for educational purposes. - This is your opinion, and it is one that goes against the guideline WP:User categories.” It is indeed my opinion, a good one I think, notwithstanding WP:User categories.
  • I am familiar with WP:HARMLESS. (1) wasn’t written for user categories; (2) while HARMLESS is not a reason to keep, HARMFUL is a reason to delete, to be considered in places where leeway is given (such as userspace). Userspace experiments could be harmful, and harmfulness is something I consider before !voting.
  • You say “The very nature of allowing user categories that don't support collaboration to stay can indeed be harmful.” Why? I suspect this is your belief unsupported by evidence of past harm.
  • Userspace categories. “I'm not quite sure what you mean here.” I thought it obvious, and you got it in one. I have read much of past discussions on categorisation, on several pages (though I am still finding more), and I understand and agree that there can easily be unintended problems of careless categorisation in mainspace, but these arguments don’t apply to userspace.
  • ”I'm not sure what "should be given leeway"”. As per WP:UP, we allow leeway in userspace, for experimentation, education, expression, interactions, and not limited to predefined rules. I argue that categories useable in userspace only (userspace categories) should be given generous leeway for the same reason we give generous leeway for content in userspace, noting a great absence of familiarity with categories amongst wikipedians generally.
  • Absolutely, I am saying “we ignore the guideline *requiring* user categories to support collaboration”. Categories to support collaboration are excellent, but to *require* proven capability to support collaboration is to be too restrictive. The category in question here, isn’t clearly going to lead to collaboration in the short term, with one member. But it certainly won’t if you delete it. But if it is allowed to exist (short of causing harm), and grow, then I suggest the members may discover that it is not really helping, and that some refinement is needed, perhaps breaking into subcategories such as “Category:Wikipedians interested in developing lists on borderline-notable singer-songwriters”, Category:Wikipedians interested in GA development of singer-songwriters articles”. So maybe there is collaborative potential, but one that requires an experimental-educational process to get there? In the absence of actual harm, give it leeway, and let them (the interest participants) see where it gets them (ie let the wiki work the wiki way).
  • “Even under a broad interpretation I don't think this category can support collaboration effectively” You could be right. But what if you are wrong? What if you are preventing potential due to your lack of creative imagination? There is opportunity harm in needlessly deleting harmless experiments.
  • You potential rename suggestion, valid as it could be, would be of better educational effectiveness if you allowed the interested participants to discover and decide that for them themselves. When the expert makes decisions for the beginner, it stifles learning, when talking about adults instead of children. You should encourage wikipedians to make better decisions, and not make their decisions for them. You may be right, but in deleting this category, you would still, if you are right, be robbing its creator from seeing that this category is actually not productive. Ie. You are ignoring the productiveness of allowing the creator to learn.
  • Glad we agree “The ratio per se isn't the real issue”.
  • Can I try this question again: How can I find out how many members a category had last week? If I can’t, isn’t this something that should be developed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main issue here I think is what constitutes "harmful" vs. "harmless". If we ignore collaborative value and make the standard "harmfulness", we get a slippery slope of what you actually should delete or not. For instance, I believe all user categories that don't support collaboration are harmful, in that they pollute the category system to give people the idea that they can start creating whatever categories they want, and we devolve to WP:MYSPACE where anything goes. You obviously would disagree with this, so deciding what is harmful or not is much more subjective than determining what supports collaboration or not. As for your last question, there is no way to determine how many pages were previously in a category, other than Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories to determine if something has been empty for 4+ days. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Talk of devolving to MYSPACE is to talk of an extreme, and I have no doubt that we will have the discipline to prevent a proliferation of user-categories existing for non-project purposes. I don’t disagree with you on the extreme you describe. Your concern, “pollute the category system” is worth examination. Would leeway in user categories pollute the category system beyond what looks to me to be an unwieldy mess already in mainspace categories? I think not, silly and nonsense categories, subject to WP:PERFORMANCE issues, won’t hurt the use of useful categories. Would letting this wikipedian singer-songwriter exist to see what happens pollute the system to an extent that is to detrimental to anything? I am quite sure: No. And making laws based on extremes is a bad way to go. I am not the least persuaded that we should let this category exist, noting that we don’t think it is likely to be productive, to see if its member and possible future members make anything of it, or learn from it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - largely per VegaDark. User categories are supposed to aid in collaboration and there is no indication that this category did so when it existed before or would do so now. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (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:Christian rock albums by artist[edit]

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. --Xdamrtalk 14:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Christian rock albums by artist to Category:Christian rock albums
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per conventions of subcategorization of albums. The "by artist" part seems unnecesssary at this level. Wolfer68 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful level of categorization, since the user can also browse Christian rock albums by genre. The parent, Category:Albums, also contains similar subcategorization schemes, such as by artist, by genre and by year. What conventions are you referring to? Jafeluv (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2009 (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:WFAN[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WFAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is used for radio biographies and so falls under the unwanted Performer by venue over-categorisation. See precedent here. Tassedethe (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Straightforward, I think, since radio personalities can and do switch stations and with syndication often these issues become meaningless. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2009 (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:Pending deletions[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pending deletions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded maintenance category, supposed bug is now gone ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd lean towards keep for historical purposes, but it's a weak keep at strongest. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2009 (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:Companies of the United States by location[edit]

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 the category but remove articles from it. I have placed Template:Container-cat in the category. Articles should be removed manually or by bot. Their talk pages may be moved into a newly-created WP admin category if desired. (The only reason I will not use a bot to remove the articles is in case someone wants to automate a bot to add the talk pages of these articles to another category. If it's decided we just want to remove these with no further action, we could use a bot to empty out the category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Since no one has taken any action on this or expressed an interest in doing so, I am now going to use a bot to remove the articles from the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Articles removed. The category was temporarily deleted as a consequence of the bot emptying but has been restored and now contains only the 3 subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies of the United States by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I find it rather counterintuitive that US companies whose location is not identified in the article are included in Category:Companies of the United States by location. I think it would make more sense if they were included in a subcategory of that category called Category:Companies of the United States of unspecified location, or something like that. DH85868993 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there are plenty that don't have one location? Occuli (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but with companies, they have a legal location which is used for the based in categories. As far as I know we clearly don't categorize for everywhere the company has a foot print. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, some people do try to apply categories for every individual location. But Vegaswikian is correct that there's almost always a nominal "primary location" — it's usually the location of the head office — that we use regardless of where else a company happens to have additional operations. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I created the category to be the parent category for the US companies by state and US companies by city categories and also to hold all the companies that are not yet in the city or state categories. They are not in the city of state categories, not because they exist in multiple places but because the the articles do not state in what city or state the company is based (not legally but physically, like its headquarters). There might be a better name, but because of the city and state subcats, a name that says 'needing to have location specified' would not be correct. In the meantime, anyone who wants to research the companies and add location to their articles can re-categorize the company to that city or state and diminish the number of direct articles in this category. I tried to make this all clear in my comments in the category. Also, US companies by industry is a different tree and should not in any way be confused with location. Hmains (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not suggesting that Category:Companies of the United States by location should be deleted or renamed, and I'm quite happy for it to remain as the parent category of Category:Companies by city in the United States, Category:Companies of the United States by state and Category:Defunct companies of the United States by location. I'm just saying that I don't think it's an appropriate category to hold articles about US companies whose location is not identified in the article, because when you're reading one of those articles, seeing "Companies of the United States by location" in the list of categories at the bottom of the article doesn't make sense. DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about a subcategory for these articles? But what to name it? What it would contain is 'Companies of United States whose articles do not state their US state headquarters location'. But I know this wouldn't fly. By the way, I am populating this category by working my way though the entire tree of articles of the 10,000 'US companies by industry' (only 8,600 more to go, 100 a week). As you can see, many many do not state their headquarters location. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the category shouldn't be used in this way (and have even personally removed it from a few articles), but CFD isn't really the venue for discussing how to make the most appropriate use of a category that nobody wants deleted. Suggest that this discussion be moved to Category talk:Companies of the United States by location instead. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately brought this discussion here rather than there in the interests of maximising participation in the discussion - I didn't think very many people would see the discussion at Category talk:Companies of the United States by location. DH85868993 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the problem is that I included the following sentence in the category description: "Companies not in sub-categories below are known to be in the United States, but their city or state locations are not stated in their article.". Without this statement, isn't this just another category that has lots of articles that need to be placed into one of its subcategories? Hmains (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that Hmains has removed the quoted statement from the category page, the category is fine and should be retained with its sub-categories. However, I think that all articles which are directly in this category should be removed from it. Perhaps a new category should be created for the talk pages, analogous to Category:Date of birth missing (living people), e.g. Category:Location missing (U.S. companies) or the other suggestions above by the nominator or Vegaswikian. If so, it would be a useful task for a bot to remove the existing category from articles (not sub-cats) and add this new category to each of those articles' talk pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all articles into Category:Companies needing to have their location specified. Keep the category for the subcategories. Not sure how to parent, Category:Companies needing to have their location specified, but that can be handled after it is created without a discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion is not correct. These are only U.S. companies and the location that is lacking is the US State or US city, not the country--the United States. Hmains (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2009 (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:Baroque architecture in the Ukraine[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Baroque architecture in the Ukraine to Category:Baroque architecture in Ukraine
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ukraine not the Ukraine. Tassedethe (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2009 (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.

Paralympic medalists for Ukraine[edit]

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 merge/rename. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Paralympic medalists for the Ukraine to Category:Paralympic medalists for Ukraine
Suggest merging Category:Paralympic bronze medalists for the Ukraine to Category:Paralympic bronze medalists for Ukraine
Suggest merging Category:Paralympic silver medalists for the Ukraine to Category:Paralympic silver medalists for Ukraine
Suggest renaming Category:Paralympic gold medalists for the Ukraine to Category:Paralympic gold medalists for Ukraine
Nominator's rationale. Ukraine not the Ukraine. Tassedethe (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (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:Countries located within Austria-Hungary[edit]

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. --Xdamrtalk 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Countries located within Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization, and irrelevant (or barely relevant) intersection. The cat contains modern countries whose territory at any point in history intersected with the territory of Austria-Hungary (note also that the cat title reads "within") . For example, southwestern parts of Montenegro were for a brief period of time controlled by Austria-Hungary. According to this strange principle, we could create millions of similar categories: "Countries within Roman Empire", "Countries within Serbian Empire", and each modern country might end up in dozen or more. The relevant category (containing kingdoms and countries which existed at the time), is already located at Category:Kingdoms and countries of Austria–Hungary. No such user (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this sort of information cannot be conveyed adequately by categories. One wonders why Italy is there, but Slovenia, Bosnia etc are missing ... was an archduke not assassinated in Bosnia c 1914? Occuli (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perhaps worth noting that there is no "at any point in history." Territory of all the countries in the category was part of Austria-Hungary throughout its history as "Austria-Hungary." Austria-Hungary only existed from 1867 to 1918, and only underwent one territorial change - the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 - but Bosnia is not, as Occuli notes, in the category. Countries which hosted Austrian Habsburg territory before 1867, like Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany, are not included in the category. That being said, the exclusion of Slovenia (one of only six countries to be wholly contained within Austro-Hungarian territory throughout Austria-Hungary's existence) is odd, and I'm not sure what the point of the category is. I'd be inclined to delete. john k (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Countries with territories in Austria-Ungarn empire". Should not delete category since it is relevant to people interested in archeology or pre-WWII history 192.219.239.151 (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename now that you mention that duke guy, it seems to me that those counties that were parts of the empire of Austria-Hungary still have a meaningful and defining connection, even nearly 100 years after its dissolution. A rename to some title that better reflects the content of the category would be useful. Alansohn (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you draw the line for a "meaningful and defining connection"? For Montenegro, it certainly isn't. For Bosnia, Serbia or Italy, barely so. I feel a touch of arbitrariness in such approach, which is seldom A Good Thing. No such user (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Countries formed out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or soemthing like that. Bosnia does potentially belong: before 1914 it was strictly Turkish territory under Austrian administration. Substantial parts of Italy were also Austrian between 1815 and Italian unification. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No—definitely not category fodder. Something that should be addressed in Austria–Hungary, or even a separate article, but these "formerly part of" categories for geographical locations are almost never appropriate, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Ol’factory's comment on appropriateness. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is meaningful information, but I don't think it's best represented in a category. It can be better conveyed with a map that shows modern state borders as well as the borders of the Austro–Hungarian Empire (do we have one?). Looking at the category, one can't distinguish between modern states that were fully within the Empire's borders and states that only had a small part of them included in it. The category seems unnecessary and not really useful like this. Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (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:Films set in the Vatican[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) rename. After some discussion and a second opinion from User:Xdamr, I'm convinced that a rename is a more appropriate course of action here. For transparency, a link to the discussion is here. Jafeluv (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films set in the Vatican to Category:Films set in Vatican City
Propose deleting Category:Films set in the Vatican.
Propose renaming Category:Films set in the Vatican to Category:Films set in Vatican City. Or not.
Propose renaming Category:Vatican in fiction to Category:Vatican City in fiction
Propose deleting Category:Vatican in fiction.
Propose renaming Category:Vatican in fiction to Category:Vatican City in fiction. Or not.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article Vatican City, parent category Category:Vatican City, and "how to name the country" in the category naming conventions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting both per Twiceuponatime and john k below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per original reasons. Or don't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no objection to renaming the country, but I have doubts about the categories. Are there any films that take place in the Vatican as opposed to those where some of the action takes place. La Dolce Vita is about a holiday in Rome, NOT specifically about the Vatican. The fiction cat contains nothing and is probably best deleted. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are - there were already several in the category, and now there are more. I agree about dolce vita & maybe others, but that some articles should not be in a catewgory is not an argument for deletion. Likewise the books category. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deleting categories; Oppose renames. I'm with Twiceuponatime - I see no purpose to this category. Films set in Rome will often have scenes at the Vatican, but it just seems silly to have a whole category for the Vatican. Just merge into Category:Films set in Rome. I'd also add that the change in name is somewhat problematic. "Films set in the Vatican," implies films set in a particular place. "Films set in Vatican City" implies films set in a particular state, which only came into existence in 1929. To take an example The Agony and the Ecstasy is set in the Vatican, but it is not set in Vatican City, which did not exist - it is set in the Papal States, and of course does not take place wholly within the modern borders of Vatican City. john k (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, good points. I can understand the view for deletion. I can support that. Nomination amended. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last point is a very bad point indeed. If we start going down that road we will have no Italian or German-set films showing pre-19th century stories, and so on. The general principle that current national borders operate retrospectively for categories and in most case articles is firmly established, & we will be in big trouble if we let go of it. Where would that leave Category:Italian Renaissance composers and thousands of others? There are plenty of separatist nutters out there who spend their time adjusting articles so that Leonardo da Vinci et al are not "Italian". Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you review Twiceuponatime's comments, which are compelling unless someone can produce a handful of films that take place primarily within the Vatican. If the Vatican somehow peripherally enters the plot, I don't see why a film should be categorized in this way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very easily compelled, clearly! Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the personal dig. It's unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different reason from those you gave before! La dolce vita should not be there, but the Agony and the Exstacy and the The Pope Must Die certainly should. Do you really think there aren't plenty of others? Hadrian the Seventh, The Shoes of the Fisherman (bk & film), Pope Joan (1972 film), and so on. I think you should now clarify exactly what the rationale for the nom is. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, it's not. It might be different that what you thought were my reasons, though. I revised my nom and said "per Twiceuponatime and john k below". I also said "Hm, good points" underneath their comments. In this comment, I was referring to both of their comments above, which I thought was clear from the revised nom statement that referred to both of their comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Renames These works of fiction are almost certainly set in the Vatican, not the city per se. There are ample additional films and books to be added to justify the continued existence of these categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See my comment above. Very strong objection indeed to the rationale that has apparently produced the change in the nom. Support original nom. The categories are worth keeping - books and films set largely in the Vatican are naturally rather different from those set in the rest of Rome. The film category is in a "by country" tree, so might as well go to "City", and the literature to match, even though it is not. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Both categories now have 8 items - there are plenty more out there, & several best-sellers by Morris West and Malachi Martin that don't have articles yet. As far as I can see, only dolce vita should not be there. Is there any remaining argument for deletion? If so, what? Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am now happy to keep the categories; I would only make the comment that some appear to be about the papacy rather than the Vatican e.g. The Pope Must Die, and others may be about catholicism. Possibly a rename (NOT to Vatican City) is needed to cover that religious aspect. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pope Must Die may not have been filmed in the Vatican but the setting of the film was meant to be the Vatican in the same way that the film Casablanca is included in Category:Films set in Morocco although entirely filmed in Los Angeles. There are already categories for Films about religion and Films about priests. Cjc13 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. We also have Category:Catholic films, which seems in practice to be "films about Catholicism". The category covers physical setting not actual shooting location, or theme or subject. Obviously any film in the category is very likely to be about either or usually both of the papacy & the Catholic church, as well as being set in the Vatican. We have appropriate categories for the latter at least which could be added as parents. As it happens I've seen (most of) The Pope Must Die (not very good) & as far as I recall it was almost all set in the "Vatican" (low budget - one main location, obviously not the real one for interiors). Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re update (nom). I don't know enough specifically about any of these articles that have been added to know whether or not they have been appropriately added. Assuming that they were, the categories should not be deleted, so I've adjusted the nomination now for the second time. As for whether to rename or not—I vote for whatever. I would say on balance, we should probably rename it, but I'm not as convinced as I once was that it's necessary. This is going to be a fun one for the closing admin—it's kind of the opposite situation to someone manually emptying the category mid-way through. Here we've had a mid-way population, so it makes everything rather hard to follow if coming to this at any point in time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are now enough entries to justify the categories. I would support the original nom to change the names to Vatican City since it is the title of the principal article about the Vatican and to reflect the reference to a geographical area. Cjc13 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no significant difference in extent between the Vatican and the Vatican City, is there? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2009 (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:Languages of Pitcairn[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Languages of Pitcairn to Category:Languages of the Pitcairn Islands
Propose renaming Category:Islands of Pitcairn to Category:Islands of the Pitcairn Islands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article Pitcairn Islands, parent category Category:Pitcairn Islands, "how to name the country" in the category naming conventions. Pitcairn redirects to Pitcairn Islands. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (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.

Spaniards to Spanish people[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Spaniards" to "Spanish people" and changing the format of some of the categories from the old "Barian-Foos" naming system in order to standardize them and conform them with other similar categories, the parent Category:Spanish people, and the parent Category:Spanish people by ethnic or national origin. Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Fooian people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Spaniards" is shorter than "Spanish people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category consistencies. See previous similar discussions for more information and further discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom (although Equatoguinean-Spaniards is rather splendid). It is enough to have to be familiar with all the Foo/Fooian pairs without needing to learn the 'fooers' as well. Let us hope that Marshall Islanders never breed notably with people from Equatorial Guinea. Occuli (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish people may refer to anyone from Latin America. If you mean Spaniard but don't want to say Spaniard, use "people from Spain" or something like that. If you mean anyone Spanish whether or not they are citizens of Spain, then okay. Drawn Some (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename alll per nominator and ample precedent, objection above notwithstanding as it is factually incorrect. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2009 (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:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to Category:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Suggest merging Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people to Category:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee people
Nominator's rationale: Merge. To match article University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Tassedethe (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, leaving category redirects. Occuli (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge - to remove the use of non-standard keyboard characters in category names which are a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. At the ongoing discussion, there is a majority opinion—if not a consensus—that use of dashes in category names is probably OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merges to match title of parent articles as an aid to navigation and category tagging. Alansohn (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all similar proposals, as stated. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and dashes in the titles will be okay. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2009 (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.

Polish political parties[edit]

PiS[edit]
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:
--Xdamrtalk 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PiS to Category:Law and Justice (party) (or Category:Law and Justice)
Category:Prawo i Sprawiedliwość politicians to Category:Law and Justice (party) politicians (or Category:Law and Justice politicians)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article for the political party is at Law and Justice. The Polish-language name is "Prawo i Sprawiedliwość" or "PiS" for short. For category names my sense is that this may be too ambiguous, so we could tack "(party)" on the end—otherwise the category could be confused for a general category about "law and justice" or "law and justice politicians" (whatever that would be). Or we can choose to not disambiguate. If the article for the party uses English, I don't see why the categories shouldn't as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Law and Justice" is just plain bad. I suggest Category:Law and Justice (Polish party) instead, and similarly named politicians category Category:Law and Justice (Polish party) politicians. "Law and justice" is a concept, and as such will very likely miscategorize alot of things, when various editors find out it exists. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do we need the "Polish" part? What is the non-Polish political party of this name? If there is none, then my proposal is appropriate per the usual rules of disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match titles of all of the respective parent articles. Do not disambiguate by nation unless the nation is in the article title. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- but including "Polish" as their may be other parties with a similar name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Law and Justice. We don't disambiguate articles or categories pre-emptively. If there's no conflict (no other article with the same title), there's no need to add "(party)" or "(Polish party)". Also, matching the main article is usually a good idea. Jafeluv (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem is that often times politicians colloquially call themselves "law and order politicians" or (in some countries) "law and justice politicians". I'm not sure that the difference in caps between Category:Law and Justice politicians and Category:Law and justice politicians would be enough to tip users off that we are talking about a party, especially considering the difficulty many users have in correctly applying capitalization to categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2009 (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:Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe politicians[edit]
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 Category:Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe politicians to Category:Polish People's Party politicians. --Xdamrtalk 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe politicians to Category:Polish People's Party politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article for the political party, Polish People's Party. The Polish-language name is "Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe". If the article uses the English name, I don't see why the category shouldn't as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2009 (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:Liga Polskich Rodzin politicians[edit]
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 Category:Liga Polskich Rodzin politicians to Category:League of Polish Families politicians. --Xdamrtalk 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Liga Polskich Rodzin politicians to Category:League of Polish Families politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article for the political party, League of Polish Families. The Polish-language name is "Liga Polskich Rodzin". If the article uses the English name, I don't see why the category shouldn't as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There's no reason for the category to be named differently from the main article. Jafeluv (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2009 (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:Samoobrona politicians[edit]
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 Category:Samoobrona politicians to Category:Self-Defense of the Republic of Poland politicians. --Xdamrtalk 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Samoobrona politicians to Category:Self-Defense of the Republic of Poland politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article about the political party, Self-Defense of the Republic of Poland. The Polish-language name is "Samoobrona Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej". If the article uses the English name, I don't see why the category shouldn't as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to English translation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as above. No reason to deviate from the naming chosen for the main article. Jafeluv (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2009 (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:Citizens Platform[edit]
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:
--Xdamrtalk 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Citizens Platform to Category:Civic Platform
Category:Platforma Obywatelska politicians to Category:Civic Platform politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article for political party, Civic Platform. "Citizens Platform" is an alternate name. The Polish-language name is "Platforma Obywatelska". If the main article uses the English name, I don't see why the category should not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Civic Platform" or "Citizens Platform" is a bad idea, since this term is widely used in the English speaking world, and will very likely catch alot of unrelated articles to the supposed main article of these categories. I suggest Category:Civic Platform (Polish party) and Category:Civic Platform (Polish party) politicians instead. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As above, we don't disambiguate pre-emptively. If there's no other category that a reader could be looking for with this search term, then disambiguation is not needed. If there is, then the standard disambiguator would be "(party)", unless there is another similarly named party category, and so on. The article is at the non-disambiguated title, and so should the category. Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2009 (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:Extrasolar navboxes[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Extrasolar navboxes to Category:Exoplanet navboxes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Extrasolar" is an adjective that refers to anything outside the Solar System (see the dab page extrasolar) This maintenance category is specifically for navboxes involving extrasolar planets and their planetary systems, so is not for any old extrasolar navbox (like galaxy navboxes, or starcluster navboxes, etc). 76.66.196.139 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Current name also brings to mind images of clouds of navboxes floating in the intertellar void. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Grutness. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (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:Australian Institute of Management Members[edit]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian Institute of Management Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We have no article for Australian Institute of Management so it's difficult to argue that membership in this group is defining. Membership is not even mentioned in a number of the included articles. We don't need a category for every club or organization a person may have belonged to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I expect this is something one joins on payment of an annual fee. Occuli (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No doubt a notable body, but membership is hardly notable and also unmaintainable without WP having access to membership records. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2009 (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:H anime[edit]

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 both to Category:Hentai anime and manga, without ruling out the possibility of changing "Hentai" in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Using a combination of WP:JARGON and WP:USEENGLISH, I'm proposing that both of these categories be combined these two categories, which follows the same naming pattern used by other Category:Anime and manga by genre categories. The "H" in both of these category titles refers to erotic, often times sexually explicit, content. —Farix (t | c) 02:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't NECESSARILY pornographic though. But I do agree, a merge is a good idea. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, since we have the "ecchi" named categories, for erotic non-pornographic stuff. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason I chose "erotic" over "hentai" is a matter of language. This is the English-language Wikipedia and we should be using the equivalent English term when there is one in order to make articles accessible to a general audience. Especially with article and category names. The general reader is not going to know what hentai means as it is not in common English use. We use Category:Manga artists instead of Category:Mangaka and Category:Japanese voice actors instead Category:Seiyū for the exact same reasons. —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment we use "anime" and "manga" which would refute your argument, since they should be "Japanese cartoons" and "Japanese comics" instead, if we followed your reasoning. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is that "anime" and "manga" are in common usage in English and most English language readers are going to know what they are without needing a definition. This is evidence by retailers, such as f.y.e. and Borders using these terms to sort and sell their products. Hentai, on the other hand, is not. —Farix (t | c) 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Amazon uses "hentai": [1] ; so does the Los Angeles Times: [2] ; it gets over 300 his from Google books: [3] ; though a standard Google search is probably useless, since the Internet is filled with porn. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You will need considerable more evidence than that to show that the term is in wide usage. —Farix (t | c) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless I'm very much mistaken, category redirects were finally shaken out a few months ago, so if nothing else, I'd suggest such a redirect be used in this case. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You haven't explained why you chose erotic over pornographic, since, as Quasirandom points out, we already have categories for erotic anime/manga (the "ecchi" categories). 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because erotic fiction is a genre while ecchi is not (and almost everything in the ecchi category are mislabeled if ecchi = erotic). This is suppose to be a genre category. It also is a much broader category then pornography. —Farix (t | c) 10:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer until a consensus is reached about the target of the merge then merge. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Hentai anime and manga. I agree they need merging, and just using H is useless, but I do not think erotic is an appropriate change and hentai is as much "common English" as shojo, shonen, seinen, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Hentai anime and manga, per Collectonian, hentai is pretty much in English now. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_16

Leave a Reply