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.
That was deleted (mistakenly in my view) on the grounds that the albums he produced were mostly to be found in
Category:Bryan Adams albums. I haven't looked through all these but in many Rock is one of 5 or 6 co-producers, rather than the producer. I don't have strong views on whether this matters.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 01:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - based on roundhouse's comments about multiple producers and selecting an article more or less at random,
Man vs. Machine (album) lists six different people as producers and has two "produced by" categories currently. This points out quite a large problem with this entire category scheme, the same problem that arose in the Bryan Adams CFD. How much of an album needs to be produced by a particular person for it to be considered for encyclopedic purposes to be "produced by" that person? I would like to see a wider discussion of the category concept before it proliferates out of control, but in the meantime the issues with this category lead me to support its deletion. If this is notable, make a list article (which I'm thinking is the best way to handle these sorts of categories overall).
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oh shit, 615 subcategories? It's already out of control.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Look at these diffs, these are two category of the same style being added to articles:
[1],
[2],
[3].
Tasc0It's a zero! 23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have posted a proposal on how to handle this category structure in general at
Category talk:Albums by producer. Regardless of the outcome of any of the various CFDs running on these categories, please contribute your thoughts.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (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:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Category:Blockbuster novels
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.
Flowerparty☀ 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The term
blockbuster is not clearly-defined, and whether a film or novel is a blockbuster is largely a factor of external circumstances, such as the size of the market being considered. (A bestseller in Lesotho may not even register on the bestseller charts in the United States.) Also, although the phrase
'blockbuster novel' does have some use, I believe that successful books are more commonly termed
bestsellers rather than blockbusters. A list, such as
List of best-selling books, seems more appropriate than a category in this case. –Black Falcon(
Talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Even if the term "Blockbuster novels" wasn't problematic, I don't think it's wise to categorize books by their sales rankings. As far as I know, we don't do this for music albums either.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, an untenable category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as fatally ambiguous. Specific categories for books that reach #1 on specific bestseller lists might possibly be useful, but even that would be pushing it. -
Sean Curtin (
talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (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:Big Fish Studios
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete seems to be redundant to parent cat.--
Lenticel(
talk) 00:48, 24 May 2008 (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:Arts Boarding School
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Small category with unclear growth potential, vague inclusion criteria, boarding schools by specialty seems a bad tree to plant, no indication in the lone article that the school is an "arts" boarding school.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The School is an arts boarding school and the article did mention that, however, the changes have not been incoporated for some reason. Arts Boarding school is viable and most sites that talk about boarding schools (such as boarding school review) have this as a category themselves. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rbertin (
talk •
contribs) 23:37, 26 May 2008 (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:Ashanti (singer)
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 per precedent and absence of growth.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous overcategorisation for an individual. The category currently contains only the article about singer herself; the subcategories for albums and songs produced by her are already otherwise categories. All the material is adequately interlinked through the main article and
Template:Ashanti. –Black Falcon(
Talk) 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - there are 2 sizeable subcats, about 10 related images, a template and no doubt other articles yet to be added. I have not grasped the objection to 'Eponymous categories'; it seems to be an article of faith passed down from the earliest wikipedians. (
Category:Stuff related to Ashanti (singer) would do but seems less elegant.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The objection to eponymous categories, which used to be more fully explained at
WP:OC before someone took a hacksaw to it, is that in most instances they are unnecessary to serve as navigational hubs for the material about the person, band, etc. In most instances the article about the person, perhaps with associated templates (for instance, for albums and singles for Ashanti) serves to link the material together and anyone looking for information related to Ashanti is going to start with her article, not go searching for a category. Eponymous articles also tend to attract inappropriate articles, for instance categorizing films in which the actor appeared under the actor's category, which we don't do. If the material relating to the person is so complex that navigation would be hindered relying on the article, then a category may be appropriate. A good example of that is
Category:Rudy Giuliani, which was at one point deleted as unnecessary but during his 2008 presidential bid was recreated without objection. Image galleries shouldn't be included in categories regardless. Given the volume of material here and the ease of linkage through article text and template, delete this category per nom and
WP:OC.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not advocating image galleries, rather the addition of each image (using __NOGALLERY__, cf
Category:Mariah Carey). As I have observed before, the 2 related subcats need to be gathered together in a parent cat, their union, so that the navigator in category space, obstinately declining to deviate into article or template space, can move readily from the one to the other. (Your prodigious output is clearly and consistently argued, by the way. Respect.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
And with all due respect in return, I find it impossible to believe that someone is simply going to look to see whether there is a category for Ashanti songs for the sake of knowing that such a category exists. Presumably he's looking for an Ashanti songs category because he is interested in reading about Ashanti songs, which requires that he venture across the void into article space, which will link him to the main article and bring him into contact with the templates as well.
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I was undecided, probably leaning toward delete. But if this category is in fact likely to grow as suggested, it should be kept.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
It's been three days since that suggestion was made and nothing's been added to the category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (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:Ashanti albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Definitely - Rename per nom.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep as is. We don't categorise albums by singer's ethnicity or region of origin, so this isn't really ambiguous. I'd understand if there was an Ashanti language, but there isn't. This move seems too pedantic to me.
Flowerparty☀ 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Categories in most instances should match their lead articles and while the confusion here is unlikely it's not impossible. I note that we do in some instances sub-categorize musical material by nation of origin (c.f.
Category:Songs by Canadian artists) so a structure for Ashanti-region performers may develop.
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I can't help but think this 'potential for confusion' argument is being vastly overstated. I'm sure most people access the categories, if at all, through the links at the bottom of the articles, or if not then through the tree - either way the meaning of any otherwise ambiguous word should be patently obvious. Given that there currently is no second category (for albums from the ashanti region? - I find that highly unlikely, btw) with which this one could be confused this seems like disambiguation by clairvoyance. I find this piecemeal introduction of a standard for categories inheriting their disambiguator from the article title rather thoughtless and inhuman. When did our editors become robots?
Flowerparty☀ 10:56, 5 June 2008 (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 cinema lists
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (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:Activewear
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (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:Players who have played for Boca Juniors and River Plate
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization for football rivalry and per CFD on
2007 February 1.
Matthew_hktc 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - overcategorisation, per nom.
Terraxos (
talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom BanRay 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment, I have nothing against categories for players for both teams in major football rivalries, but I understand the definition of major could be manipulated to allow stuff like Players who have played for Bristol City & Bristol Rovers, so I understand the reason for deletion. All I ask is that someone checks that all of the players in this category are listed in the appropriate section of the
Superclasico article before the category is deleted
EP 19:20, 5 June 2008 (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.
Personal image categories
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: result. No need for these categoriesGwen Gale (
talk) 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per precedent set
here and
here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need to make categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I think these images are better off in a user subpage.--
Lenticel(
talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - per above. Keeping track of one's image uploads is certainly legitimate, but a user subpage would be more appropriate. –Black Falcon(
Talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (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:Special hearings of the United States Congress
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This should be relisted for further discussion.
Cgingold (
talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Category:Missing Children
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.DoczillaSTOMP! 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category was created as a redirect to an article, which in turn is the only article using this category. Appears unlikely to be useful.
Russ(talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Theoretically, there could be a rationale for this category. But in reality, the overwhelming majority of missing children are actually child abduction cases, and that subject is already well covered through
Category:Child abduction and
Category:Kidnapped children, and their sub-cats. We don't even have a separate article on the subject --
Missing children is merely a redirect to
Child abduction. If at some point there are articles on missing children (as distinct from abducted children), this category can always be re-created. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per R'n'B and Cgingold. -
Sean Curtin (
talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (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.
Cities named after X in the United States
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 all.
Flowerparty☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:: These seem a poor basis for categorization. Would work better as a list, if at all.
older ≠
wiser 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
if so, where is the list?
Hmains (
talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Never said there was one. I'm not even sure there should actually be one. I certainly have no interest in such a list. But if such a thing as is collected in this category is worth having in an encyclopedia, it would be better as a list than as a category, IMO.
older ≠
wiser 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - While I'm leaning in the direction of listifying, I would like to hear from the categories' creator and any other supporters. I also would note that there could potentially be a larger category tree for such cities in other parts of the world. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete all - I would not be against an article on the names of US cities, but for categorization this characteristic is far too trivial.
gidonb (
talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is categorization by shared name, clear
WP:OCAT.
Otto4711 (
talk) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Probably listify, definitely delete. -
Sean Curtin (
talk) 22:04, 26 May 2008 (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:Cities named Apamea
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.
Flowerparty☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (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:Cities named after London, England
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.
Flowerparty☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Seems an entirely superfluous category, something better served by a list, if at all.
older ≠
wiser 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - No real need for a category, there's an extensive list of cities and other places named after London at
London (disambiguation).
Cgingold (
talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete redundant to the dab page.--
Lenticel(
talk) 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is categorization by shared name, clear
WP:OCAT.
Otto4711 (
talk) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (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:Military facilities
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, (also withdrawn by nominator).
Woody (
talk) 11:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no main article for military facilities. Instead the article
Military bases used, however it is badly written, and due to lack of sources is based on the assumption that a facility is necessarily representative of all types of military property, which is the name for all types of property used by the militaries, and is similar to Category:Real Estate.mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
keep as is. In the military environment, the term in use is 'military facilities' for all real estate, buildings and other structures in use by the military. The contents of this category and its subcats show that much more is involved here than simply 'real estate'.
Hmains (
talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
keep as is. I believe the discussion down below shows that people are happier with either 'bases' or 'facilities', though we are going to have to decide on one or the other.
Buckshot06(
prof) 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. No main article in and of itself is not a reason to delete. The current name is accurate and not ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Additionally, the term "
real estate" is primarily a U.S. term; I believe "property" is more common in Commonwealth countries, but that term has other ambiguity problems.-
choster (
talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Here is the problem. The term property on its own has a wider application then just land. In the military, in fact all 170 World's militaries Buckshot006 mentions in his proposal, all military land and structures on them are part of
property management, however that is not the only function in the use of military land historically or in specific terms. The term Real Estate is a general English term that sufficiently applies to both the land and the structures on it without being ambiguous or specific on only one facet of their utility. In fact this is the problem in the article Military base, naming
A military base may go by any of a number of names such as
As can be seen these are in some cases undefined although in the article it is acknowledged that names reflect utility. That they should not be all grouped under one name "military base" is clear from the very list. A naval dockyard can, and these days usually is a non-military commercial manufacturing or repair enterprise used as much by civilian as military vessels, and this was also the case going back to the 17th century. Caserne is just a German word for barracks. A garrison need not be permanent as is implied by the word base, and a fort can be a temporary field construction and not necessarily Fort Hood. The Kremlin Arsenal is clearly not a base, but a museum although Kremlin itself has a garrison, which does not live in barracks. A magazine, a word hardly used today, is what depots are, although a depot need not be making a permanent use of military land use property or have any permanent military structures such as a
fuel-cell dump, while linking airbase to a "field" is of dubious value, and an obvious confusion with the US usage of airfield that used to be the
Aerodrome. The only common term that combines both military land and military structures is
Military real estate--
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - "Military facilities" indicates with clarity what the category is used for; "real estate" would be confusing for many readers.
Cgingold (
talk) 01:28, 26 May 2008 (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:1. FC Nürnberg players
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, kept as a redirect. Bots will move the names over in due course.
BencherliteTalk 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, but keep present version as a redirect, since it uses the correct German spelling.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, keep present version as redirect.--
Wulf Isebrand (
talk) 12:26, 28 May 2008 (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:Economic simulation games
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I found a reference for the previously unreferenced article, and this is the most notable, reliable, verifiable name for the category of games. See
business simulation game for more information, and examine the reference if at all possible.
Randomran (
talk) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (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:Tower series
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable, over-categorization, unverifiable... small list that will never grow very large.
Randomran (
talk) 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - since the main article seems to have been deleted, leaving an empty category (except headnote).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, it seems that
Tower series has never existed (empty deletion log); an HTML comment on the headnote suggests the creator actually wanted it to link to
SimTower but couldn't figure out how to do so (note he's using {{
catmore}}, which automatically puts that note in).
Yoot Tower would also lie in this category if cleaned up, as would
The Tower DS once it pops out of the crystal ball. Still a very small category though. --
tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 20:48, 28 May 2008 (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:People of former countries
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: less of a suggested rename then a call for suggestions to rename this, the equivalent of
Category:People by nationality for no longer existent nationalities(taken here to mean 'citizenship').
Category:People by former nationality or 'prior nationality' likely yields a list of people who have changed nationality (ie. citizenship) by their previous citizenship. The phrases 'extinct nationality' or 'defunct nationality' seems incorrect. And the point to the phraseology 'country, nation or state' is to try to be all-inclusive, to include any form of entity whether it be imperial, city-state, monarchial, tribal, or other form of state/nation, modern or pre-modern. I doubt very much that this is the best renaming - like I say, an open call for suggestions
Mayumashu (
talk) 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Suggest for this parent category
Category:People of countries no longer existing, or perhaps
Category:People of states no longer existing, which would cover polities of various kinds. I would steer away from modern concepts such as nationality and citizenship, since many of the categories relate to ancient realms from a period before these concepts arose. Please also bear in mind that the Roman slave
Spartacus was certainly Roman, but not a citizen or even a peregrinus (free man without citizenship.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Defunct" is used in a lot of these sorts of cats so what about
Category:People by defunct nationality? It reads a little odd but avoids the whole "former" confusion.
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (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:Military bases
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 to merge.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates more general category and thus has some countries' facilities/bases under 'bases' and other countries' under 'facilities'. Everything should be in one place, permitting a full perusal of entries easily. (Possibly, to avoid the category being recreated again by an unknowing editor, it should be converted into a redirect).
Buckshot06(
prof) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think I agree with the concept but may oppose since the proposed merge is not correct. Many of these categories and articles belong in sub categories of
Category:Military facilities. I guess my question is should they be moved to the proper category as a result of this nomination or depend on someone to cleanup behind a bot if this merge is approved. I would think doing the manual intelligent merge is best and leave any leftovers for a bot. Some may only need to have this cat removed so another option would be to make sure that have a good sub cat and then simply delete this one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose a military base and a military facility are two very different entities.
Balloonman (
talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Could you explain further? How do you see them as different? Surely there are both areas of land with buildings on them, occupied by people who work for the military.
Buckshot06(
prof) 09:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
A military facility could be a single building. A military base can be what you just described.
Balloonman (
talk) 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comments Balloonman. But, surely, one building, would, under the definition I just wrote up up higher, be on an area of land, and be occupied by people who work for the military. Why would that not be a 'military base.'? I'm not trying to criticise you or anything, I'm just trying to understand what you see as the difference and why. Regards
Buckshot06(
prof) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
A person in the military would never consider a single building, EVEN the Pentagon or Walter Reid Hospital, to be a base. Nor would they consider a military prison to a base. Nor would they consider some research locations, armories, hospitals, weapons ranges, some training grounds, military school, or military housing units (which may be located OFF of a base.) The later has been an issue of discussion because the housing of military members "off base" has been taxed differently than the housing of military members who live "on base" despite the fact that both live in military housing units/facilities.
Balloonman (
talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
From the examples you're giving, I assume you're talking about a U.S. military definition. However we have to think over over 170 militaries all over the world. Do you believe your definitions as above should hold given we need to think of a set of categories and conventions that will be appropriate for all the world's armed forces? Interested in you thoughts - and potential solutions, given the category tree involved is so messed up.
Buckshot06(
prof) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I think it would hold true for other militaries around the world as well. A military facility can be a military base, but isn't necessarily so. If you open the definition up, then you might be introducing facilities such as embassies/consulates, which aren't military bases, but have military presences... and in some countries the division isn't as distinct as it is in the US.
Balloonman (
talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge - the category main article for Military bases is badly written and completely unsourced, and this is causing confusion. Category:Military facilities doesn't have a main article that explains what the term means and how it is applied. In fact the entire category needs to be renamed [[Category:Military real estate]]--
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
do not merge military bases are a proper subset of miltiary facilities and not the other other way around. Therefore, they are not equivalent and not mergeable.
Hmains (
talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Again, would be interested to hear you write why. What exactly, in your definition is a 'military base,' and why is it not a 'military facility'?
Buckshot06(
prof) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You should reread and accept the correct information provided by
Balloonman above
Hmains (
talk) 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Excuse me Hmains, but I find that a little rude. You seem to be saying that every military in the world would be happy to accept Balloonman's characterisation of its bases/facilities/whatever? Not only that, but someone has to define the terms. If we're to come to a final agreement on this category question, we would have to get a definition for 'base' that would go beyond the list of examples Balloonman cited, which would be clear which was in and out of scope on what were bases versus facilities, and that would be applicable to places such as
Moscow Metro 2 or
Burnham, New Zealand, not just simple cases like, for example,
Langley Air Force Base. You have not advanced evidence as to why we should apply current US military naming conventions to the entire world - and no-one seems to have any comprehensive definitions to determine what would be in or out of scope.
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Are going to suggest that there are military's out there that would classify their military hospitals, schools, recruitment centers, isloated radar stations, etc as bases? Sorry, they aren't.
Balloonman (
talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: It seems to me that the real question here is not so much what WE might define as a "military base", but rather what the military defines as a "military base". Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 23:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
That creates the difficulty, whose military? We've got around 170ish of them in the world.
Buckshot06(
prof) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You have yet to explain why the current arrangement is wrong. You have exposed some inconsistencies in some areas that can be corrected without a survey here. Those inconsistencies are not a justification to merge.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well pointed out. Maybe a merger isn't the correct course of action. Thoughts on what is?
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I've actually already started doing that, moving everything into
Category:Military facilities. If anyone has a problem with that, please sing out. Regards
Buckshot06(
prof) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Agreed, especially since it seems that Buckshot's desire to merge these two categories is the lone voice for that position.
Balloonman (
talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I'm going to follow Vegaswikian's advice and merge the bases into facilities (while keeping the subcat military bases; if anyone has any queries on particular category decisions, please do raise it with me. Cheers
Buckshot06(
prof) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Note that I said 'appropriate subcategory of
Category:Military bases' so the subcategories should be retained and have dual parents as needed. The subcategories should not be emptied.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge - As others have pointed out, not all facilities are bases.
Cgingold (
talk) 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Update: As anyone looking at my edits will see, I've been moving some of the subcategories around, as per the discussion above. If people feel some of the changes are inappropriate, please appeal hear or on my talk. Cheers
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Suggestion You could simple combine both into
Category:Military installations. I think the term "installation" would adequetely encompass both "base" and "facility". Then the definitions could be further defined between single buildings and larger bases if necessary. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
What do others think of this suggestion? 'Military installations' sounds like a good all-embracing term to me, incorporating the meanings expressed both by 'bases' and 'facilities', and I'm happy to regroup all the categories should there be general agreement. Regards
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (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:Hemostatic agents
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Antihemorrhagics is a more widely-used name to refer to drugs that stop bleeding. The main article on the topic,
hemostatic agent has just been moved to
antihemorrhagic, and the category should be renamed to match.
Scott Alter 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. As a non-medical person, I understand the new name, but I had no idea on the current name.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:07, 23 May 2008 (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.
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.
That was deleted (mistakenly in my view) on the grounds that the albums he produced were mostly to be found in
Category:Bryan Adams albums. I haven't looked through all these but in many Rock is one of 5 or 6 co-producers, rather than the producer. I don't have strong views on whether this matters.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 01:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - based on roundhouse's comments about multiple producers and selecting an article more or less at random,
Man vs. Machine (album) lists six different people as producers and has two "produced by" categories currently. This points out quite a large problem with this entire category scheme, the same problem that arose in the Bryan Adams CFD. How much of an album needs to be produced by a particular person for it to be considered for encyclopedic purposes to be "produced by" that person? I would like to see a wider discussion of the category concept before it proliferates out of control, but in the meantime the issues with this category lead me to support its deletion. If this is notable, make a list article (which I'm thinking is the best way to handle these sorts of categories overall).
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oh shit, 615 subcategories? It's already out of control.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Look at these diffs, these are two category of the same style being added to articles:
[1],
[2],
[3].
Tasc0It's a zero! 23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have posted a proposal on how to handle this category structure in general at
Category talk:Albums by producer. Regardless of the outcome of any of the various CFDs running on these categories, please contribute your thoughts.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (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:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Category:Blockbuster novels
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.
Flowerparty☀ 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The term
blockbuster is not clearly-defined, and whether a film or novel is a blockbuster is largely a factor of external circumstances, such as the size of the market being considered. (A bestseller in Lesotho may not even register on the bestseller charts in the United States.) Also, although the phrase
'blockbuster novel' does have some use, I believe that successful books are more commonly termed
bestsellers rather than blockbusters. A list, such as
List of best-selling books, seems more appropriate than a category in this case. –Black Falcon(
Talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Even if the term "Blockbuster novels" wasn't problematic, I don't think it's wise to categorize books by their sales rankings. As far as I know, we don't do this for music albums either.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, an untenable category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as fatally ambiguous. Specific categories for books that reach #1 on specific bestseller lists might possibly be useful, but even that would be pushing it. -
Sean Curtin (
talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (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:Big Fish Studios
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete seems to be redundant to parent cat.--
Lenticel(
talk) 00:48, 24 May 2008 (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:Arts Boarding School
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Small category with unclear growth potential, vague inclusion criteria, boarding schools by specialty seems a bad tree to plant, no indication in the lone article that the school is an "arts" boarding school.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The School is an arts boarding school and the article did mention that, however, the changes have not been incoporated for some reason. Arts Boarding school is viable and most sites that talk about boarding schools (such as boarding school review) have this as a category themselves. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rbertin (
talk •
contribs) 23:37, 26 May 2008 (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:Ashanti (singer)
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 per precedent and absence of growth.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous overcategorisation for an individual. The category currently contains only the article about singer herself; the subcategories for albums and songs produced by her are already otherwise categories. All the material is adequately interlinked through the main article and
Template:Ashanti. –Black Falcon(
Talk) 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - there are 2 sizeable subcats, about 10 related images, a template and no doubt other articles yet to be added. I have not grasped the objection to 'Eponymous categories'; it seems to be an article of faith passed down from the earliest wikipedians. (
Category:Stuff related to Ashanti (singer) would do but seems less elegant.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The objection to eponymous categories, which used to be more fully explained at
WP:OC before someone took a hacksaw to it, is that in most instances they are unnecessary to serve as navigational hubs for the material about the person, band, etc. In most instances the article about the person, perhaps with associated templates (for instance, for albums and singles for Ashanti) serves to link the material together and anyone looking for information related to Ashanti is going to start with her article, not go searching for a category. Eponymous articles also tend to attract inappropriate articles, for instance categorizing films in which the actor appeared under the actor's category, which we don't do. If the material relating to the person is so complex that navigation would be hindered relying on the article, then a category may be appropriate. A good example of that is
Category:Rudy Giuliani, which was at one point deleted as unnecessary but during his 2008 presidential bid was recreated without objection. Image galleries shouldn't be included in categories regardless. Given the volume of material here and the ease of linkage through article text and template, delete this category per nom and
WP:OC.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not advocating image galleries, rather the addition of each image (using __NOGALLERY__, cf
Category:Mariah Carey). As I have observed before, the 2 related subcats need to be gathered together in a parent cat, their union, so that the navigator in category space, obstinately declining to deviate into article or template space, can move readily from the one to the other. (Your prodigious output is clearly and consistently argued, by the way. Respect.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
And with all due respect in return, I find it impossible to believe that someone is simply going to look to see whether there is a category for Ashanti songs for the sake of knowing that such a category exists. Presumably he's looking for an Ashanti songs category because he is interested in reading about Ashanti songs, which requires that he venture across the void into article space, which will link him to the main article and bring him into contact with the templates as well.
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I was undecided, probably leaning toward delete. But if this category is in fact likely to grow as suggested, it should be kept.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
It's been three days since that suggestion was made and nothing's been added to the category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (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:Ashanti albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Definitely - Rename per nom.
Cgingold (
talk) 11:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep as is. We don't categorise albums by singer's ethnicity or region of origin, so this isn't really ambiguous. I'd understand if there was an Ashanti language, but there isn't. This move seems too pedantic to me.
Flowerparty☀ 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Categories in most instances should match their lead articles and while the confusion here is unlikely it's not impossible. I note that we do in some instances sub-categorize musical material by nation of origin (c.f.
Category:Songs by Canadian artists) so a structure for Ashanti-region performers may develop.
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I can't help but think this 'potential for confusion' argument is being vastly overstated. I'm sure most people access the categories, if at all, through the links at the bottom of the articles, or if not then through the tree - either way the meaning of any otherwise ambiguous word should be patently obvious. Given that there currently is no second category (for albums from the ashanti region? - I find that highly unlikely, btw) with which this one could be confused this seems like disambiguation by clairvoyance. I find this piecemeal introduction of a standard for categories inheriting their disambiguator from the article title rather thoughtless and inhuman. When did our editors become robots?
Flowerparty☀ 10:56, 5 June 2008 (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 cinema lists
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (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:Activewear
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (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:Players who have played for Boca Juniors and River Plate
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization for football rivalry and per CFD on
2007 February 1.
Matthew_hktc 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - overcategorisation, per nom.
Terraxos (
talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom BanRay 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment, I have nothing against categories for players for both teams in major football rivalries, but I understand the definition of major could be manipulated to allow stuff like Players who have played for Bristol City & Bristol Rovers, so I understand the reason for deletion. All I ask is that someone checks that all of the players in this category are listed in the appropriate section of the
Superclasico article before the category is deleted
EP 19:20, 5 June 2008 (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.
Personal image categories
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: result. No need for these categoriesGwen Gale (
talk) 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per precedent set
here and
here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need to make categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I think these images are better off in a user subpage.--
Lenticel(
talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - per above. Keeping track of one's image uploads is certainly legitimate, but a user subpage would be more appropriate. –Black Falcon(
Talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (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:Special hearings of the United States Congress
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This should be relisted for further discussion.
Cgingold (
talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Category:Missing Children
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.DoczillaSTOMP! 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category was created as a redirect to an article, which in turn is the only article using this category. Appears unlikely to be useful.
Russ(talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Theoretically, there could be a rationale for this category. But in reality, the overwhelming majority of missing children are actually child abduction cases, and that subject is already well covered through
Category:Child abduction and
Category:Kidnapped children, and their sub-cats. We don't even have a separate article on the subject --
Missing children is merely a redirect to
Child abduction. If at some point there are articles on missing children (as distinct from abducted children), this category can always be re-created. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per R'n'B and Cgingold. -
Sean Curtin (
talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (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.
Cities named after X in the United States
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 all.
Flowerparty☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:: These seem a poor basis for categorization. Would work better as a list, if at all.
older ≠
wiser 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
if so, where is the list?
Hmains (
talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Never said there was one. I'm not even sure there should actually be one. I certainly have no interest in such a list. But if such a thing as is collected in this category is worth having in an encyclopedia, it would be better as a list than as a category, IMO.
older ≠
wiser 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - While I'm leaning in the direction of listifying, I would like to hear from the categories' creator and any other supporters. I also would note that there could potentially be a larger category tree for such cities in other parts of the world. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete all - I would not be against an article on the names of US cities, but for categorization this characteristic is far too trivial.
gidonb (
talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is categorization by shared name, clear
WP:OCAT.
Otto4711 (
talk) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Probably listify, definitely delete. -
Sean Curtin (
talk) 22:04, 26 May 2008 (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:Cities named Apamea
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.
Flowerparty☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (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:Cities named after London, England
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.
Flowerparty☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Seems an entirely superfluous category, something better served by a list, if at all.
older ≠
wiser 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - No real need for a category, there's an extensive list of cities and other places named after London at
London (disambiguation).
Cgingold (
talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete redundant to the dab page.--
Lenticel(
talk) 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is categorization by shared name, clear
WP:OCAT.
Otto4711 (
talk) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (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:Military facilities
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, (also withdrawn by nominator).
Woody (
talk) 11:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no main article for military facilities. Instead the article
Military bases used, however it is badly written, and due to lack of sources is based on the assumption that a facility is necessarily representative of all types of military property, which is the name for all types of property used by the militaries, and is similar to Category:Real Estate.mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
keep as is. In the military environment, the term in use is 'military facilities' for all real estate, buildings and other structures in use by the military. The contents of this category and its subcats show that much more is involved here than simply 'real estate'.
Hmains (
talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
keep as is. I believe the discussion down below shows that people are happier with either 'bases' or 'facilities', though we are going to have to decide on one or the other.
Buckshot06(
prof) 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. No main article in and of itself is not a reason to delete. The current name is accurate and not ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Additionally, the term "
real estate" is primarily a U.S. term; I believe "property" is more common in Commonwealth countries, but that term has other ambiguity problems.-
choster (
talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Here is the problem. The term property on its own has a wider application then just land. In the military, in fact all 170 World's militaries Buckshot006 mentions in his proposal, all military land and structures on them are part of
property management, however that is not the only function in the use of military land historically or in specific terms. The term Real Estate is a general English term that sufficiently applies to both the land and the structures on it without being ambiguous or specific on only one facet of their utility. In fact this is the problem in the article Military base, naming
A military base may go by any of a number of names such as
As can be seen these are in some cases undefined although in the article it is acknowledged that names reflect utility. That they should not be all grouped under one name "military base" is clear from the very list. A naval dockyard can, and these days usually is a non-military commercial manufacturing or repair enterprise used as much by civilian as military vessels, and this was also the case going back to the 17th century. Caserne is just a German word for barracks. A garrison need not be permanent as is implied by the word base, and a fort can be a temporary field construction and not necessarily Fort Hood. The Kremlin Arsenal is clearly not a base, but a museum although Kremlin itself has a garrison, which does not live in barracks. A magazine, a word hardly used today, is what depots are, although a depot need not be making a permanent use of military land use property or have any permanent military structures such as a
fuel-cell dump, while linking airbase to a "field" is of dubious value, and an obvious confusion with the US usage of airfield that used to be the
Aerodrome. The only common term that combines both military land and military structures is
Military real estate--
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - "Military facilities" indicates with clarity what the category is used for; "real estate" would be confusing for many readers.
Cgingold (
talk) 01:28, 26 May 2008 (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:1. FC Nürnberg players
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, kept as a redirect. Bots will move the names over in due course.
BencherliteTalk 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, but keep present version as a redirect, since it uses the correct German spelling.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, keep present version as redirect.--
Wulf Isebrand (
talk) 12:26, 28 May 2008 (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:Economic simulation games
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I found a reference for the previously unreferenced article, and this is the most notable, reliable, verifiable name for the category of games. See
business simulation game for more information, and examine the reference if at all possible.
Randomran (
talk) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (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:Tower series
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable, over-categorization, unverifiable... small list that will never grow very large.
Randomran (
talk) 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - since the main article seems to have been deleted, leaving an empty category (except headnote).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, it seems that
Tower series has never existed (empty deletion log); an HTML comment on the headnote suggests the creator actually wanted it to link to
SimTower but couldn't figure out how to do so (note he's using {{
catmore}}, which automatically puts that note in).
Yoot Tower would also lie in this category if cleaned up, as would
The Tower DS once it pops out of the crystal ball. Still a very small category though. --
tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 20:48, 28 May 2008 (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:People of former countries
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: less of a suggested rename then a call for suggestions to rename this, the equivalent of
Category:People by nationality for no longer existent nationalities(taken here to mean 'citizenship').
Category:People by former nationality or 'prior nationality' likely yields a list of people who have changed nationality (ie. citizenship) by their previous citizenship. The phrases 'extinct nationality' or 'defunct nationality' seems incorrect. And the point to the phraseology 'country, nation or state' is to try to be all-inclusive, to include any form of entity whether it be imperial, city-state, monarchial, tribal, or other form of state/nation, modern or pre-modern. I doubt very much that this is the best renaming - like I say, an open call for suggestions
Mayumashu (
talk) 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Suggest for this parent category
Category:People of countries no longer existing, or perhaps
Category:People of states no longer existing, which would cover polities of various kinds. I would steer away from modern concepts such as nationality and citizenship, since many of the categories relate to ancient realms from a period before these concepts arose. Please also bear in mind that the Roman slave
Spartacus was certainly Roman, but not a citizen or even a peregrinus (free man without citizenship.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Defunct" is used in a lot of these sorts of cats so what about
Category:People by defunct nationality? It reads a little odd but avoids the whole "former" confusion.
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (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:Military bases
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 to merge.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates more general category and thus has some countries' facilities/bases under 'bases' and other countries' under 'facilities'. Everything should be in one place, permitting a full perusal of entries easily. (Possibly, to avoid the category being recreated again by an unknowing editor, it should be converted into a redirect).
Buckshot06(
prof) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think I agree with the concept but may oppose since the proposed merge is not correct. Many of these categories and articles belong in sub categories of
Category:Military facilities. I guess my question is should they be moved to the proper category as a result of this nomination or depend on someone to cleanup behind a bot if this merge is approved. I would think doing the manual intelligent merge is best and leave any leftovers for a bot. Some may only need to have this cat removed so another option would be to make sure that have a good sub cat and then simply delete this one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose a military base and a military facility are two very different entities.
Balloonman (
talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Could you explain further? How do you see them as different? Surely there are both areas of land with buildings on them, occupied by people who work for the military.
Buckshot06(
prof) 09:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
A military facility could be a single building. A military base can be what you just described.
Balloonman (
talk) 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comments Balloonman. But, surely, one building, would, under the definition I just wrote up up higher, be on an area of land, and be occupied by people who work for the military. Why would that not be a 'military base.'? I'm not trying to criticise you or anything, I'm just trying to understand what you see as the difference and why. Regards
Buckshot06(
prof) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
A person in the military would never consider a single building, EVEN the Pentagon or Walter Reid Hospital, to be a base. Nor would they consider a military prison to a base. Nor would they consider some research locations, armories, hospitals, weapons ranges, some training grounds, military school, or military housing units (which may be located OFF of a base.) The later has been an issue of discussion because the housing of military members "off base" has been taxed differently than the housing of military members who live "on base" despite the fact that both live in military housing units/facilities.
Balloonman (
talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
From the examples you're giving, I assume you're talking about a U.S. military definition. However we have to think over over 170 militaries all over the world. Do you believe your definitions as above should hold given we need to think of a set of categories and conventions that will be appropriate for all the world's armed forces? Interested in you thoughts - and potential solutions, given the category tree involved is so messed up.
Buckshot06(
prof) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I think it would hold true for other militaries around the world as well. A military facility can be a military base, but isn't necessarily so. If you open the definition up, then you might be introducing facilities such as embassies/consulates, which aren't military bases, but have military presences... and in some countries the division isn't as distinct as it is in the US.
Balloonman (
talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge - the category main article for Military bases is badly written and completely unsourced, and this is causing confusion. Category:Military facilities doesn't have a main article that explains what the term means and how it is applied. In fact the entire category needs to be renamed [[Category:Military real estate]]--
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
do not merge military bases are a proper subset of miltiary facilities and not the other other way around. Therefore, they are not equivalent and not mergeable.
Hmains (
talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Again, would be interested to hear you write why. What exactly, in your definition is a 'military base,' and why is it not a 'military facility'?
Buckshot06(
prof) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You should reread and accept the correct information provided by
Balloonman above
Hmains (
talk) 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Excuse me Hmains, but I find that a little rude. You seem to be saying that every military in the world would be happy to accept Balloonman's characterisation of its bases/facilities/whatever? Not only that, but someone has to define the terms. If we're to come to a final agreement on this category question, we would have to get a definition for 'base' that would go beyond the list of examples Balloonman cited, which would be clear which was in and out of scope on what were bases versus facilities, and that would be applicable to places such as
Moscow Metro 2 or
Burnham, New Zealand, not just simple cases like, for example,
Langley Air Force Base. You have not advanced evidence as to why we should apply current US military naming conventions to the entire world - and no-one seems to have any comprehensive definitions to determine what would be in or out of scope.
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Are going to suggest that there are military's out there that would classify their military hospitals, schools, recruitment centers, isloated radar stations, etc as bases? Sorry, they aren't.
Balloonman (
talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: It seems to me that the real question here is not so much what WE might define as a "military base", but rather what the military defines as a "military base". Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 23:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
That creates the difficulty, whose military? We've got around 170ish of them in the world.
Buckshot06(
prof) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You have yet to explain why the current arrangement is wrong. You have exposed some inconsistencies in some areas that can be corrected without a survey here. Those inconsistencies are not a justification to merge.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well pointed out. Maybe a merger isn't the correct course of action. Thoughts on what is?
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I've actually already started doing that, moving everything into
Category:Military facilities. If anyone has a problem with that, please sing out. Regards
Buckshot06(
prof) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Agreed, especially since it seems that Buckshot's desire to merge these two categories is the lone voice for that position.
Balloonman (
talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I'm going to follow Vegaswikian's advice and merge the bases into facilities (while keeping the subcat military bases; if anyone has any queries on particular category decisions, please do raise it with me. Cheers
Buckshot06(
prof) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Note that I said 'appropriate subcategory of
Category:Military bases' so the subcategories should be retained and have dual parents as needed. The subcategories should not be emptied.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge - As others have pointed out, not all facilities are bases.
Cgingold (
talk) 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Update: As anyone looking at my edits will see, I've been moving some of the subcategories around, as per the discussion above. If people feel some of the changes are inappropriate, please appeal hear or on my talk. Cheers
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Suggestion You could simple combine both into
Category:Military installations. I think the term "installation" would adequetely encompass both "base" and "facility". Then the definitions could be further defined between single buildings and larger bases if necessary. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
What do others think of this suggestion? 'Military installations' sounds like a good all-embracing term to me, incorporating the meanings expressed both by 'bases' and 'facilities', and I'm happy to regroup all the categories should there be general agreement. Regards
Buckshot06(
prof) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (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:Hemostatic agents
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.
Flowerparty☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Antihemorrhagics is a more widely-used name to refer to drugs that stop bleeding. The main article on the topic,
hemostatic agent has just been moved to
antihemorrhagic, and the category should be renamed to match.
Scott Alter 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. As a non-medical person, I understand the new name, but I had no idea on the current name.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:07, 23 May 2008 (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.