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.
Oppose. I started the test nomination that instituted this change, and I was not particularly wedded to either format at the time, but the support for disambiguating was quite strong. So I support the current approach. And there's little doubt that Washington alone is ambiguous, since Washington, D.C. is often referred to colloquially as just "Washington". Some day Wikiproject Washington will see the light and consent to the disambiguation of the main article. Some day.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As a Washingtonian, I have to constantly explain I'm not from D.C. So a little disambiguation here seems very apropos. As for WikiProject Washington, I would politely say that its members do not represent the wishes of all Washingtonians on Wikipedia. The
Georgians on Wikipedia have figured out that clarity beats regional pride any day.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
05:40, 22 April 2010 (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:Acoustic music 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.
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad and basically trivial categorization. There is no need or utility in categorizing albums as being primarily recorded with acoustic (or electric) guitar and if this was properly populated, there would be an unnavigable number of articles. This is also subcategorized under
Category:Albums by genre even though "acoustic" is not a genre of music. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
21:43, 19 April 2010 (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:Anglican bishops by diocese in the United Kingdom
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 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:Anglican bishops by diocese outside the United Kingdom
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. We normally don't categorize by exceptions. The proposed parent is rather small and listing these dioceses in the parent will not hurt navigation and would likely improve it.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, they say, fix one problem and find two more. 00:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Footer and header message boxes
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 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:American Professors of English
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: This is categorized under
Category:American academics, but this is narrowly about professors specifically and not broader English academics. I'm not sure what the best name is, but it's certainly not this one (if for no other reason than its improper capitalization.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
17:56, 19 April 2010 (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.
Party ethnic groups 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.
Delete I created some sub-categories, but I admit I did that to increase visibility to promote discussion. I probably should have just put it up for deletion though.--
T. Anthony (
talk)
09:55, 19 April 2010 (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:Video games featuring Nazism
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: The "featuring" part of the title suggests that the games promote or are mainly based around Nazism. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. If a Nazi appears in a video game, it is not necessarily defining for the game. Nazis have become such a stock "bad guy" character that this is probably nothing more than a trivial aspect of a game. I would think that a category that is mainly based around Nazism might be worth categorizing, but not any game that happens to contain aspects of Nazism.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or (second choice) rename to indicate that the games "feature" (or whatever word is more appropriate, per G.O.F.) soldiers of
Nazi Germany (Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine etc.), not
nazism ("the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany").
Nazi chic, perhaps, but this one is too subjective.
NVO (
talk)
09:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete (i.e: I don't care about the title, I think the category sucks and should be eliminated), because:
(a) 99% of these games are set in World War Two, so why not use the existing category (Category:World_War_II_video_games)?
(b) Nazism is an ideology. I don't see ideas being discussed and debated in a combat zone. The Wehrmacht, while being loyal to the German high command, were largely apolitical.
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:Hollywood families
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.
Category:Hollywood families could do with the bigger picture treatment. OK, most of the people there were indeed involved in Hollywood at some stage of their career. But some, such as the elder Redgraves, were very much English and did very little work in the USA. Their grandkids Natasha and Joely Richardson have become more associated with Hollywood, but that isn't really true of the whole family/dynasty.
I’m suggesting the category be renamed to Theatrical dynasties or Acting dynasties or Acting families. There could then be a sub-category that mentions the word “Hollywood” if that's really necessary.
On a related note, I see that we now have subcats for the Coppola, DeBarge, Eastwood, Estevez, Jackson, Mankiewicz and Sedgwick families. How are these any different from the Rajesh Khanna, Redgrave, Rooney, Sheen-Estevez, Stiller and Travolta families, all of which subcats were
deleted in 2007? --
Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Show business families if we decide to keep the category. With the list behind this choice of name, I'm not convinced that we need the category. However I am ambivalent about that point but would not object if someone wants to see this deleted.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:03, 19 April 2010 (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.
Oppose. I started the test nomination that instituted this change, and I was not particularly wedded to either format at the time, but the support for disambiguating was quite strong. So I support the current approach. And there's little doubt that Washington alone is ambiguous, since Washington, D.C. is often referred to colloquially as just "Washington". Some day Wikiproject Washington will see the light and consent to the disambiguation of the main article. Some day.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As a Washingtonian, I have to constantly explain I'm not from D.C. So a little disambiguation here seems very apropos. As for WikiProject Washington, I would politely say that its members do not represent the wishes of all Washingtonians on Wikipedia. The
Georgians on Wikipedia have figured out that clarity beats regional pride any day.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
05:40, 22 April 2010 (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:Acoustic music 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.
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad and basically trivial categorization. There is no need or utility in categorizing albums as being primarily recorded with acoustic (or electric) guitar and if this was properly populated, there would be an unnavigable number of articles. This is also subcategorized under
Category:Albums by genre even though "acoustic" is not a genre of music. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
21:43, 19 April 2010 (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:Anglican bishops by diocese in the United Kingdom
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 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:Anglican bishops by diocese outside the United Kingdom
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. We normally don't categorize by exceptions. The proposed parent is rather small and listing these dioceses in the parent will not hurt navigation and would likely improve it.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, they say, fix one problem and find two more. 00:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Footer and header message boxes
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 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:American Professors of English
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: This is categorized under
Category:American academics, but this is narrowly about professors specifically and not broader English academics. I'm not sure what the best name is, but it's certainly not this one (if for no other reason than its improper capitalization.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
17:56, 19 April 2010 (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.
Party ethnic groups 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.
Delete I created some sub-categories, but I admit I did that to increase visibility to promote discussion. I probably should have just put it up for deletion though.--
T. Anthony (
talk)
09:55, 19 April 2010 (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:Video games featuring Nazism
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: The "featuring" part of the title suggests that the games promote or are mainly based around Nazism. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. If a Nazi appears in a video game, it is not necessarily defining for the game. Nazis have become such a stock "bad guy" character that this is probably nothing more than a trivial aspect of a game. I would think that a category that is mainly based around Nazism might be worth categorizing, but not any game that happens to contain aspects of Nazism.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or (second choice) rename to indicate that the games "feature" (or whatever word is more appropriate, per G.O.F.) soldiers of
Nazi Germany (Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine etc.), not
nazism ("the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany").
Nazi chic, perhaps, but this one is too subjective.
NVO (
talk)
09:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete (i.e: I don't care about the title, I think the category sucks and should be eliminated), because:
(a) 99% of these games are set in World War Two, so why not use the existing category (Category:World_War_II_video_games)?
(b) Nazism is an ideology. I don't see ideas being discussed and debated in a combat zone. The Wehrmacht, while being loyal to the German high command, were largely apolitical.
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:Hollywood families
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.
Category:Hollywood families could do with the bigger picture treatment. OK, most of the people there were indeed involved in Hollywood at some stage of their career. But some, such as the elder Redgraves, were very much English and did very little work in the USA. Their grandkids Natasha and Joely Richardson have become more associated with Hollywood, but that isn't really true of the whole family/dynasty.
I’m suggesting the category be renamed to Theatrical dynasties or Acting dynasties or Acting families. There could then be a sub-category that mentions the word “Hollywood” if that's really necessary.
On a related note, I see that we now have subcats for the Coppola, DeBarge, Eastwood, Estevez, Jackson, Mankiewicz and Sedgwick families. How are these any different from the Rajesh Khanna, Redgrave, Rooney, Sheen-Estevez, Stiller and Travolta families, all of which subcats were
deleted in 2007? --
Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Show business families if we decide to keep the category. With the list behind this choice of name, I'm not convinced that we need the category. However I am ambivalent about that point but would not object if someone wants to see this deleted.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:03, 19 April 2010 (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.