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 as nominated. (It's not cool to move the main article during the discussion, which was done here twice by an editor, and was each time rightfully reversed.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
(after ec)
Foo, Poland is the standard naming articles for towns in Poland, and the categories are named to match. Thus, the article for Police is at
Police, Poland. If it was an article about Poland's police force, for instance, it wouldn't be disambiguated that way - "Police, Poland" is a highly unlikely name for such an article or category. Other places which sthare their names with other objects are standardly disambiguated in this way (e.g.,
Venus, Romania,
Hell, Norway,
Gold, California, and
Banana, Queensland).
Grutness...wha? 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support since it appears to be a settlement from the name. It also happens to match the name used for the main article.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Police, Poland to match the main article, since I don't think that it's likely to be confused with
Category:Law enforcement in Poland. In any case, consistency—with the article name and category general naming conventions for settlements—is the best protection against possible confusion. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, disambiguation is a standard when needed, The need is not demonstrated here,
Vegaswikian1 (
talk) 05:35, 6 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.
Ottoman Macedonia (Greece/ROM/Bulgaria)
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:Discussion ended - no action required from closing admin. --Xdamrtalk 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- In principle I agree, but the issue is highly political. All three seem to be parts of
Salonika Province, Ottoman Empire, which suggests that the area had not political unity even in 1864-1913 when that province existed. The question that needs to be answered is, "How can we define Macedonia in the Ottoman period?" I have no answer to that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment No reason this needs to be highly political. I think all historians from all countries would agree that the current borders were not relevant in the Ottoman period. Perhaps the solution is simply to rename
Category:Ottoman Macedonia to
Category:Salonika Province, Ottoman Empire? As you point out, that province only existed relatively briefly (compared to the Rumeli eyalet), but it does seem to be a meaningful unit in the context of the
Struggle for Macedonia and the Balkan Wars. --
macrakis (
talk) 13:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Post-1864 Ottoman Macedonia (region) is divided in three eyalets
Salonika,
Monastir and
Kosovo. The one categorization does not exclude the other. (Early and Late Ottoman Macedonia) but even in the wiki-articles, there is no mention that this person was born in the Monastir or Salonika Ottoman Province.
Catalographer (
talk) 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
So Ottoman Macedonia seems like the appropriate category. I still have seen no rationale for using the modern borders in subcategorizing it. --
macrakis (
talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
For the simple reason that the one subcategory belongs to the History of the Republic of Macedonia and Ottoman-era Macedonia (Greece) to Category: Ottoman Greece like Ottoman Crete.
Catalographer (
talk) 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Further comment I am commenting again because some one asked me to. I agree that categorisation of ancient entities by modern country is undesirable. The categorisation cited in the case of Toron seems appropriate, since it is located in modern Lebanon, but this is a single place. The issue that I raised over Ottoman Macedonia is of how its limits should be defined, sicne other articles do not appear to indicate what its legal extent was. If some one can provide a robust definition of its extent, I see no reason why there should not be an "Ottoman Macedonia" category, probably parented by multiple "history of ..." categories. However a category picking up the intersection of history + former state + modenr state would be a highly undesirable triple intersection.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
My 2 cents worth: since there was no Ottoman administrative, religious or geographic region called Macedonia, it seems futile to invent one with hindesight. Therefore, I suggest we delete that category.
Politis (
talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
But there was neither a Byzantine provinve Medieval Macedonia or a region called Macedonia before Herodotus and Thucydides,so?
Catalographer (
talk) 09:44, 8 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.
Serie C1 and Serie C2
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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These Italian footbal clubs have been renamed, and thus there are duplicate categories. Since the new name is the Lega Pro Prima and Seconda Divisione, all tagged article should be merged under the new name. --
NickPenguin(
contribs) 20:55, 30 August 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.
Croix de Guerre (France)
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge iot unify these two into a single category which observes naming conventions for 'Recipients' categories. --Xdamrtalk 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom to "Recipients of ..." which seems to be the commoner.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge both per nominator. Keep up the good work.
Debresser (
talk) 18:42, 31 August 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:Opposition to apartheid in Namibia
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.
I will bring this up again; Namibia has been the internationally recognized name of the country since 1968, despite apartheid not officially ending until 1990.--
TM 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Internationally recognized: yes. Most commonly-used: no, not until after 1990.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:13, 2 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.
Military awards recipients
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename iot bring all these 'Recipients' categories into the established form. --Xdamrtalk 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nom.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nom, assuming no more national disambiguators are needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 18:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all. Phrasing is much more objective.
Student7 (
talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all, exceptCategory:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. I believe that it already has the most adequate name since it makes reference to a "medal". In my opinion it would be wrong move it to "Category:Recipients of the Silver Star" since a "Silver Star" can be anything.
Tony the Marine (
talk) 07:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I take your point, but I don't think that the potential for erroneous use is too significant. There is a prominent link to
Silver Star in the category lead and given its place in the general category hierarchy I think that its purpose is clear. Possibly worth noting that the use of the official medal name, without qualification, is general practice in the 'Recipients' categories, and the main article itself is at
Silver Star. If consensus is that the danger of misuse is an issue then what about
Category:Recipients of the Silver Star (United States)? --Xdamrtalk 19:33, 4 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:United States military honor recipients
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.
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 18:39, 31 August 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.
Military awards
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename in order to bring these categories into line with naming conventions established for
Category:Military decorations. --Xdamrtalk 14:25, 30 August 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:Hard-bop musicians
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/Merge per nom. --Xdamrtalk 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all Checking
Berendt's "The Jazz book", neither the development tree nor the text hyphenate.
AllyD (
talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As a noun "hard bop" is correct. But when used as an adjective, "hard-bop" needs to be hyphenated, so we know that these are musicians who play "hard bop" not "bop musicians" who are "hard".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:13, 7 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.
LGBT-related films by sports
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These are highly specialised intersections of dubious value. A more generic
Category:LGBT-related sports films may be the way to go.
PC78 (
talk) 10:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It's true that the number of movies in each sport category created is admittedly small, but having the individual categories creates access from the particular sports page. For example when one is checking the general
Category:Basketball films, there is a direct access from that page to lead to
Category:Basketball LGBT-related films. Although better populated categories are more useful as suggested above, by creating one single global category
Category:LGBT-related sports films, this important link let's say between all basketball movies (straight and gay) will be lost. Plus that there was never a minimum number of entries set and there are so many categories that are populated with just one or two items.
werldwayd (
talk) 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The "important link" between all basketball articles would not be lost because they would all be in
Category:Basketball films. I simply don't think this is necessary. It doesn't help that these categories were inappropriate to the two articles you added them to.
Shirts & Skins is not a film and I have recategorised it accordingly.
Like a Virgin (film) is not about baseball but rather
ssireum. Regarding that last article, I don't even think that we need
Category:Ssireum films because even that would be too specialised, and creating
Category:Ssireum LGBT-related films would be utterly pointless.
PC78 (
talk) 12:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Also, can you please stop creating more of these categories until we can determine if they are actually needed or not? For one thing it would be preferable to name them like
Category:LGBT-related baseball films.
PC78 (
talk) 12:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - as nom notes, far too narrow an intersection. Also
small categories with little or no growth potential. Are there even any films that would fit into the baseball or basketball categories, and are there any other "Diving LGBT-related films"?
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as nominated; no upmerging is needed, as each film is already categorised by sport and as LGBT-related by country. A new article,
List of LGBT-related sports films in
Category:Lists of LGBT-related films, might be a better idea, as it could contain more information e.g. country and year. It could also include films where LGBT was a notable theme but not the central one; categorising them would be
WP:OCAT but the list could state the context. -
Fayenatic(talk) 21:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. These are not really defining intersections, and having the films in two categories (one for the sport, one for LGBT) seems sufficient. Agree with Fayenatic's suggestion.
Jafeluv (
talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
That upmerge would not be appropriate, as each film is already categorised in a sub-cat as LGBT-related by country. No objection to merging the nominated categories into
Category:LGBT-related sports films as suggested by
Shawn in Montreal, but a list would obviously be more informative, mentioning the sport, year, country etc. -
Fayenatic(talk) 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Subcats and rename parent to
Catgeory:LGBT-related sports films The subcats are either empty or severely underpopulated. The parent would effectively serve until additional films are released. The proposed alternate name better describes the category of the content, but reliable and verifiable sources must be provided that characterize the films with the rather vague description of "LGBT-related" (or a close variant thereof) to justify their inclusion.
Alansohn (
talk) 22:41, 8 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:Software comparisons for mathematics-related software
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to a less clunky, less redundant name. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support rename, makes sense to reduce and lower redundancy. --
SarekOfVulcan (
talk) 16:25, 1 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.
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 as nominated. (It's not cool to move the main article during the discussion, which was done here twice by an editor, and was each time rightfully reversed.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
(after ec)
Foo, Poland is the standard naming articles for towns in Poland, and the categories are named to match. Thus, the article for Police is at
Police, Poland. If it was an article about Poland's police force, for instance, it wouldn't be disambiguated that way - "Police, Poland" is a highly unlikely name for such an article or category. Other places which sthare their names with other objects are standardly disambiguated in this way (e.g.,
Venus, Romania,
Hell, Norway,
Gold, California, and
Banana, Queensland).
Grutness...wha? 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support since it appears to be a settlement from the name. It also happens to match the name used for the main article.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Police, Poland to match the main article, since I don't think that it's likely to be confused with
Category:Law enforcement in Poland. In any case, consistency—with the article name and category general naming conventions for settlements—is the best protection against possible confusion. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK) 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, disambiguation is a standard when needed, The need is not demonstrated here,
Vegaswikian1 (
talk) 05:35, 6 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.
Ottoman Macedonia (Greece/ROM/Bulgaria)
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:Discussion ended - no action required from closing admin. --Xdamrtalk 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- In principle I agree, but the issue is highly political. All three seem to be parts of
Salonika Province, Ottoman Empire, which suggests that the area had not political unity even in 1864-1913 when that province existed. The question that needs to be answered is, "How can we define Macedonia in the Ottoman period?" I have no answer to that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment No reason this needs to be highly political. I think all historians from all countries would agree that the current borders were not relevant in the Ottoman period. Perhaps the solution is simply to rename
Category:Ottoman Macedonia to
Category:Salonika Province, Ottoman Empire? As you point out, that province only existed relatively briefly (compared to the Rumeli eyalet), but it does seem to be a meaningful unit in the context of the
Struggle for Macedonia and the Balkan Wars. --
macrakis (
talk) 13:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Post-1864 Ottoman Macedonia (region) is divided in three eyalets
Salonika,
Monastir and
Kosovo. The one categorization does not exclude the other. (Early and Late Ottoman Macedonia) but even in the wiki-articles, there is no mention that this person was born in the Monastir or Salonika Ottoman Province.
Catalographer (
talk) 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
So Ottoman Macedonia seems like the appropriate category. I still have seen no rationale for using the modern borders in subcategorizing it. --
macrakis (
talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
For the simple reason that the one subcategory belongs to the History of the Republic of Macedonia and Ottoman-era Macedonia (Greece) to Category: Ottoman Greece like Ottoman Crete.
Catalographer (
talk) 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Further comment I am commenting again because some one asked me to. I agree that categorisation of ancient entities by modern country is undesirable. The categorisation cited in the case of Toron seems appropriate, since it is located in modern Lebanon, but this is a single place. The issue that I raised over Ottoman Macedonia is of how its limits should be defined, sicne other articles do not appear to indicate what its legal extent was. If some one can provide a robust definition of its extent, I see no reason why there should not be an "Ottoman Macedonia" category, probably parented by multiple "history of ..." categories. However a category picking up the intersection of history + former state + modenr state would be a highly undesirable triple intersection.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
My 2 cents worth: since there was no Ottoman administrative, religious or geographic region called Macedonia, it seems futile to invent one with hindesight. Therefore, I suggest we delete that category.
Politis (
talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
But there was neither a Byzantine provinve Medieval Macedonia or a region called Macedonia before Herodotus and Thucydides,so?
Catalographer (
talk) 09:44, 8 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.
Serie C1 and Serie C2
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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These Italian footbal clubs have been renamed, and thus there are duplicate categories. Since the new name is the Lega Pro Prima and Seconda Divisione, all tagged article should be merged under the new name. --
NickPenguin(
contribs) 20:55, 30 August 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.
Croix de Guerre (France)
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge iot unify these two into a single category which observes naming conventions for 'Recipients' categories. --Xdamrtalk 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom to "Recipients of ..." which seems to be the commoner.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge both per nominator. Keep up the good work.
Debresser (
talk) 18:42, 31 August 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:Opposition to apartheid in Namibia
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.
I will bring this up again; Namibia has been the internationally recognized name of the country since 1968, despite apartheid not officially ending until 1990.--
TM 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Internationally recognized: yes. Most commonly-used: no, not until after 1990.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:13, 2 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.
Military awards recipients
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename iot bring all these 'Recipients' categories into the established form. --Xdamrtalk 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nom.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nom, assuming no more national disambiguators are needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 18:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all. Phrasing is much more objective.
Student7 (
talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all, exceptCategory:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. I believe that it already has the most adequate name since it makes reference to a "medal". In my opinion it would be wrong move it to "Category:Recipients of the Silver Star" since a "Silver Star" can be anything.
Tony the Marine (
talk) 07:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I take your point, but I don't think that the potential for erroneous use is too significant. There is a prominent link to
Silver Star in the category lead and given its place in the general category hierarchy I think that its purpose is clear. Possibly worth noting that the use of the official medal name, without qualification, is general practice in the 'Recipients' categories, and the main article itself is at
Silver Star. If consensus is that the danger of misuse is an issue then what about
Category:Recipients of the Silver Star (United States)? --Xdamrtalk 19:33, 4 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:United States military honor recipients
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.
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 18:39, 31 August 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.
Military awards
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename in order to bring these categories into line with naming conventions established for
Category:Military decorations. --Xdamrtalk 14:25, 30 August 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:Hard-bop musicians
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/Merge per nom. --Xdamrtalk 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename all Checking
Berendt's "The Jazz book", neither the development tree nor the text hyphenate.
AllyD (
talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As a noun "hard bop" is correct. But when used as an adjective, "hard-bop" needs to be hyphenated, so we know that these are musicians who play "hard bop" not "bop musicians" who are "hard".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:13, 7 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.
LGBT-related films by sports
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These are highly specialised intersections of dubious value. A more generic
Category:LGBT-related sports films may be the way to go.
PC78 (
talk) 10:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It's true that the number of movies in each sport category created is admittedly small, but having the individual categories creates access from the particular sports page. For example when one is checking the general
Category:Basketball films, there is a direct access from that page to lead to
Category:Basketball LGBT-related films. Although better populated categories are more useful as suggested above, by creating one single global category
Category:LGBT-related sports films, this important link let's say between all basketball movies (straight and gay) will be lost. Plus that there was never a minimum number of entries set and there are so many categories that are populated with just one or two items.
werldwayd (
talk) 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The "important link" between all basketball articles would not be lost because they would all be in
Category:Basketball films. I simply don't think this is necessary. It doesn't help that these categories were inappropriate to the two articles you added them to.
Shirts & Skins is not a film and I have recategorised it accordingly.
Like a Virgin (film) is not about baseball but rather
ssireum. Regarding that last article, I don't even think that we need
Category:Ssireum films because even that would be too specialised, and creating
Category:Ssireum LGBT-related films would be utterly pointless.
PC78 (
talk) 12:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Also, can you please stop creating more of these categories until we can determine if they are actually needed or not? For one thing it would be preferable to name them like
Category:LGBT-related baseball films.
PC78 (
talk) 12:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - as nom notes, far too narrow an intersection. Also
small categories with little or no growth potential. Are there even any films that would fit into the baseball or basketball categories, and are there any other "Diving LGBT-related films"?
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as nominated; no upmerging is needed, as each film is already categorised by sport and as LGBT-related by country. A new article,
List of LGBT-related sports films in
Category:Lists of LGBT-related films, might be a better idea, as it could contain more information e.g. country and year. It could also include films where LGBT was a notable theme but not the central one; categorising them would be
WP:OCAT but the list could state the context. -
Fayenatic(talk) 21:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. These are not really defining intersections, and having the films in two categories (one for the sport, one for LGBT) seems sufficient. Agree with Fayenatic's suggestion.
Jafeluv (
talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
That upmerge would not be appropriate, as each film is already categorised in a sub-cat as LGBT-related by country. No objection to merging the nominated categories into
Category:LGBT-related sports films as suggested by
Shawn in Montreal, but a list would obviously be more informative, mentioning the sport, year, country etc. -
Fayenatic(talk) 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Subcats and rename parent to
Catgeory:LGBT-related sports films The subcats are either empty or severely underpopulated. The parent would effectively serve until additional films are released. The proposed alternate name better describes the category of the content, but reliable and verifiable sources must be provided that characterize the films with the rather vague description of "LGBT-related" (or a close variant thereof) to justify their inclusion.
Alansohn (
talk) 22:41, 8 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:Software comparisons for mathematics-related software
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to a less clunky, less redundant name. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support rename, makes sense to reduce and lower redundancy. --
SarekOfVulcan (
talk) 16:25, 1 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.