The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I nominated this for a speedy renaming to add a hyphen to match the main article
Non-Chalcedonianism, but this was opposed by the category creator for the reasons explained below. As an opposed speedy nomination, I now move this to a full discussion. I still think it should match the main article, and there has been no move to attempt a name change for the article. All reliable source usages of the term I can find use the hyphen.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose The grounds for the objection are flawed: they assume that the article page is correctly named - it is not. It too should conform to the "Non Chalcedonisism" format. Wiktionary states that "Non meaning not in phrases taken from Latin and some other languages, non is a separate word and is not hyphenated. Examples: non compos mentis, persona non grata." The technical phrase Chalcedonian has Latin roots and would only be used in the context of the Church, which in the West used Latin. It is not in common usage so the hyphenated format would not apply.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I would like to see that reasoning adopted by a consensus of editors at
Talk:Non-Chalcedonianism using
WP:RM before we go down that road. All the non-WP sources I can find use the hyphen.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Make new comments under this line.
Support nom. Non Chalcedonianism is not a Latin phrase, so the Wiktionary advice although correct is irrelevant. The category should follow the article, as the nom states.
Occuli (
talk) 00:24, 2 December 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:Khans in Israel and Palestine
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. Procedural nomination. Moving from speedy section (see below). We're deciding between the two proposals. I am neutral.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 1 December 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:Rail canyons and gorges of 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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is probably part of the railfanning idea. We don't build canyons and gorges to route rail lines through them. Rail lines are run along the lowest grades that are available and those just happen to be along rivers. So this method of classification is not defining.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. In principle, I can't see why these kind of gorges and canyons should be any more defined by a rail line than a highway, and I don't see anyone suggesting that, either.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep since it is a notable (as is
Category:Rail mountain passes of the United States). The invalid reason "we don't build canyons and gorges to route rail lines" is an absurd argument to falsely infer "Rail canyon" refers to construction of the canyon rather than construction of a railway. Likewise, categorization isn't only for "defining" characteristics. Geez, how dim are you folks gonna' be?
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Geez: look up categorization.
Occuli (
talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support deletion. Overdoing it.
Dincher (
talk) 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support deletion. If there was a unique railroad structure built for canyons, that would be different but the actual articles appear to be any canyon with a rail line. Did add a transportation cat to
Soledad Canyon though as that is the focus of the article.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
KeepComment There is a flaw in the logic to delete. Canyons suitable for routing a rail line are much fewer, and harder to find, than those suitable for routing a highway or trail. Especially for through freight lines, there are serious restrictions on both grade and curvature of the route. An example of this is in Southern California, where all the past and present primary highways connecting the southern to central part of the state have used the canyons leading up to
Tejon Pass. However, due to how steep the canyon is that is used for the northern descent from Tejon pass (usually called the grapevine), the railroads are forced to use a much longer route, via
Tehachapi Pass. As such, I disagree that classifying a canyon as "used by rail" is completely meaningless. However, I'm not sure this needs to be expressed as a category, either, as if the article is even semi-developed the rail usage will be mentioned in the article. Will think about this some more.Dave (
talk) 18:25, 5 December 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:Fictional portrayals of the BPD
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 per proposal. -
Hemlock Martinis (
talk) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename (losing second "police" in the detectives category). I recommend this principle be applied to these categories as well. The NYPD officers category probably should be deleted, since it has only one redirect in it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree to above additions of this nomination. All the abbreviations should all be expanded.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I have tagged and added these to the nomination.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename Support all renaming. NYPD officers needs populating, so I request that it not be deleted too hastily
DjlnDjln (
talk) 10:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I've removed the suggestion to delete.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 19:49, 8 December 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:Sierra Crest
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This was kept at
this discussion mainly since it was not correctly added in that group nomination. I'm still proposing deletion since according to the introduction, The Sierra Crest category provides an alphabetical index of wikarticles that describe points of the Sierra Nevada's drainage divide in California. Well, this is exactly what is in the article,
Sierra Crest so while a listify could be suggested it is not needed here. While being on the divide may be noted in the articles, is being on this delineation point defining for the articles?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep (do not delete) since the deletion reason "this is exactly what is in the article" is completely false (the category isn't even populated yet). In particular the notable category for a notable lengthy watershed will provide a concise list, subdivided by alphabetic letter, which the article will never do. Also, not "being ... defining for the articles" is not a valid deletion criterian, as categorization is for multiple topics of articles, not just the defining topic of an article (e.g., a town article is primarily categorized in a town category, but may have other non-primary topics that are subjects of articles such as former county seat, historical event, etc -- and they are categorized in those non-primary categories!)
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, who explains well why this is redundant at best. Not being defining for the articles is a very common and valid criterion for deletion, and it is one that applies here, I think.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Question: The
Sierra Crest article is about the north to south ridgeline of the
Sierra Nevada (U.S.) and yet the articles in the
Category:Sierra Crest are about east to west passes that only interset the ridgeline at a single point. What is the intent of the category? How do you know if an article is related to the Sierra Crest?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:13, 5 December 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:Railroad attractions
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary level of navigation since where appropriate these are already included in local visitor attraction categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep (do not delete) since the deletion reason "Unnecessary" is invalid since
Category:Visitor attractions is a valid category tree, and railroad museums, heritage railroads, etc. are indeed railroad visitor attractions. In particular, the dubious rationale "already included in local visitor attraction categories" is an absurd reason that justifies improperly deleting ALL subcategories of
Category:Visitor attractions (e.g., all parks in
Category:Parks are already in a local category). Does this Vegaswikiuser really think such dim claims are valid (oh wait, I suspect the momentary-lack-of-critical-thinking is quite popular as indicated by the next section)?
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as a container category for the various subcats (which all appear to fit the description of being railroad-related attractions). (It's not unnecessary as it forms a grouping which no other category duplicates.)
Occuli (
talk) 00:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Change terminology culturally bound and biased 'container category' - many parts of world do not have railroads, but railways and even trains in alternate usage - if a container category is really required - go think a better term for a start - so I disagree with both above -
SatuSuro 00:41, 3 December 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:United States railfanning locations
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. This is not
WP:TRAVEL. Also a subjective decision. If they can be documented, then a list should be created.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep (do not delete), as what Wikipedia IS NOT ("this is not WP:TRAVEL") is not a valid deletion reason, since of course Visitor attractions are indeed within the scope of Wikipedia -- it's an entire category tree! Also, since
Category:United States railfanning locations is the "local visitor attraction" category for a national locale, the nominator justified it's existing with his rationalization in the preceeding section!
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oh, good heavens, support. This is like the peak-bagging stuff, only worse.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The "like the peak-bagging stuff" reason is completely false, as the category is not about which people have actual "bagged" (visited) a railroad attraction in the United States, nor is it about who first visited an attraction, etc. In fact, since Railroad attractions are locations, they are 'like the mountain stuff' since mountains are locations which have a complete category tree (which is cross subdivided by state, mountain range, geology, etc.). More lack of critical thinking. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.75.158.153 (
talk •
contribs)
Delete all – being of interest to railfans is incidental, at most, not defining.
Occuli (
talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Question: How do we know if it's a good location to train watch? Is there a good objective reference source out there?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete interesting for those that care about trains, of little value to others.
Dincher (
talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: The same could be said of, say,
Category:Fringillidae: "Interesting for those who care about birds," etc. Or any number of other categories. An "Interesting to some people but not others" argument slips into
WP:WHOCARES territory; just because it's boring to one person doesn't mean it is to another (and vice versa, of course). -
The BushrangerOne ping only 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete main, state, Maryland & California cats: If a railroad enthusiast organization started rating locations or a travel organizations started tracking popularity, then we would have an objective list to reference. At this point this cat just serves as a subjective travel report on locations other trainspotters find useful. This information is better suited to another website.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, Unlike other cats, such as
Category:Rail mountain passes, there is no objective criteria for what is a railfanning location. As such the criteria will be overly subjective.
Dave (
talk) 19:12, 5 December 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.
Single-game achievements in baseball, part 2
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 on the perfect game cat, delete the no hitter one.
Kbdank71 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete both. Being distinctly rare does not change the nature of the latter category. Otherwise, why not
Category:Major League Baseball players who completed an unassisted triple play? I would also, in fact, argue that not many people,
Don Larsen aside, are defined by having thrown a perfect game. And even Larsen is known for when he threw it, not that he did it.
Resolute 18:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Both as defining characteristics of the players involved.
Alansohn (
talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep perfect game category, weak keep the no-hitter category. I would definitely consider pitching a perfect game a defining characteristic, while pitching a no-hitter is less so, but still defining enough to keep as a category, IMO.
VegaDark (
talk) 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete the no-hitter one; ambivalent about the perfect-game one. I don't think pitching a no-hitter is a defining characteristic since they are relatively commonplace. Perfect games are very rare, so I suppose it could be said to be defining for the pitcher, but I'm not sure why a list for both of these wouldn't be more appropriate as well as sufficient.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep both ("pitching a no-hitter [is] relatively commonplace"? Wow, how can anyone make such a preposterous claim?)
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Because it is true, in a relative sense, meaning compared to pitching a perfect game. There have been 20 perfect games in history and 269 no-hitters. At a rate of about two no-hitters every season, versus less than two perfect games every decade, I would call that relatively commonplace.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete both as non-defining characteristics. These make great lists, but are not defining for a player. I can understand the case for an awards category like MVPs and Cy Young Award winners, but many of the best pitchers of all time never threw a no hitter or perfect game (like Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens).--
TM 00:18, 5 December 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:2000s TV shows in India
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:33, 10 December 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:Golden ages
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. I've made the recommendation adjustment to
Golden age (metaphor) before deletion.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, as it is not subjective (use of the term "Golden age" is by numerous authorities in various fields)
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Nothing connects these subjects except that some source has referred to them as the "golden age of XXXX".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per others, but checking they are in the much longer list at
Golden age (metaphor) if appropriate.
Johnbod (
talk) 10:18, 8 December 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.
Furman Paladins
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; I'm not sure relisting again will stimulate any comments, so given that this has been listed for over a month now, I think we can invoke
WP:SILENCE.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Similar to the Ole Miss categories below, Furman no longer seems to use "Lady Paladins." Examples
here and
here.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:19, 1 December 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.
Lady Rebels
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. I created most of these
Ole Miss Rebels categories years ago, when the University of Mississippi men's teams were Rebels and the women's teams were Lady Rebels. The school no longer seems to use the term "Lady Rebels" for its women's sports teams. Examples
here,
here, and
here. Note the sequencing of the above nominations, as
Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball would need to lose its former purpose before gaining a new one.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Dincher (
talk) 21:26, 4 December 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.
Manitoba Bisons
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. The first category is comprised entirely of hockey players. The second category is just for subcategories such as
Category:Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players. The Canadian equivalent of
Category:College athletes in the United States by team seems to be the underpopulated
Category:Interuniversity athletes in Canada, which gives no guidance whether a Canadian category should follow the U.S. principle that "athlete" means "active sportsperson" or the more global principle that "athlete" means "track and field participant." This nomination assumes the former, but I'm open to being educated otherwise.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I support merging the University of Manitoba Bisons players to Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players, as that naturally is where they should go. However , I don't support the second renaming. All Universities in Canada have "Category:School X players" as the overarching category. So to keep with the format, I would keep the name as players unless you are proposing to rename all 40 someodd CIS members as "Category:School X athletes" of which I do not support. At least in Canada you hear of hockey players, football players etc. but you never hear them called hockey athletes or football athletes. The only time you hear athletes mentioned is when it is track and field or cross-country.
Shootmaster 44 (
talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the knowledge. All the sport-specific categories in all countries are "School X players," but in the US categories, we've used "School athletes" to define the broader class of sports players.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 01:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support #1, Oppose #2 per Shootmaster. -
DJSasso (
talk) 20:17, 6 December 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:Crocodiles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Technically speaking, not all animals in this category are crocodiles. Some, for example, are aligators. On the other hand, all are crocodilians.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep since wiktionary defines crocodile as including animals in this category: "Any of a variety of related predatory amphibious reptiles, related to the alligator." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.75.158.153 (
talk •
contribs)
Rename per nom. Some of these are alligators, not just "related to the alligator". Alligators are not crocodiles. This clarifies the situation.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 2 December 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:Ornamental plants
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. Subjective inclusion criteria. And by most subjective opinions, this would be ridiculously large if actually populated.
Hesperian 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - support - culturally bound - what could be ornamental in one context could be a weed in another
SatuSuro 00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly OpposeCategory:Ornamental trees deletion; MergeCategory:Ornamental plants, articles only, with
Category:Garden plants, although use in non-garden urban-regional parks, highways, etc. is then minimized. The cat. naming with 'Ornamental plants' probably came from Ornamental Horticulture, a degree program and department/school at colleges and universities, and so not an
Indiscriminate category for many. It's distinguished from agricultural productive horticulture with the term ornamental. You may want to post this delete notice on the
Category:Horticulture and gardening project or portal page, as the term
ornamental plant is widely used in 'coffee table-do it yourself' books and magazines, horticulture industry publications, and academic journals. With
Category:Ornamental trees, Ornamental trees is a widely used term, usually meaning adaptable to urban and garden conditions, used over time-centuries for non-productive aesthetic purposes, and regionally available in the horticulture trade-nurseries. There is no category to merge its articles into. With
Category:Ornamental plants, there are several hundred articles there, not to be lost if the category is deleted, that can use the similar
Category:Garden plants---
Look2See1t a l k → 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly Oppose. If there is reliable sourcing indicating that the plants or trees in question have been, or are being, used ornamentally, then it is reasonable to have these categories, and for those pages to be in the categories. The categories are subjective if pages are placed there based on editor opinion, but they are not subjective (for our purposes) if based on sources. And I can easily imagine readers finding the categories useful, if they would like to find pages based upon ornamental use. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 20:02, 9 December 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:Superstores 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:rename, for now. This entire category tree needs a re-evaluation, as there are multiple categories for the same concept. For now, I'm just cleaning up the capitalization.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed for capitalization or it should be deleted. Imzadi1979→ 04:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. While not in the article names, this is really
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. I did not recommend any merge since I suspect that all of the articles have good parents.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep since wiktionary defines superstore as "An extremely large store, hypermarket." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.75.158.153 (
talk •
contribs)
The contents are actually companies that may own some big-box stores. So while the companies could be classified as big-box, is this defining for the companies? Based on the contents what is included is companies and not stores. So if we really need something in this area it seems to be more accurately named
Category:Companies that operate big-box stores in the United States. Not sure that we want to do that.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:39, 4 December 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:Venue
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article
Venue (law). Obviously just having a category called "
Venue" is quite ambiguous.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
But the category is not about "legal venues", it is about the legal concept of
venue. There is a significant difference. A "legal venue" is an actual place in a specific sense. The legal concept is about where a trial is held in a general sense, not in a specific sense. (For example, asking for a "change of venue" isn't asking if you can move out of courtroom 1A and move upstairs into courtroom 2A. That is a legal venue. It's more like asking to move it to a different city or county.) That is why the article is at
Venue (law), whereas the examples you cite have the articles
sport venue and
music venue.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
rename per nom to match main and correct article
Hmains (
talk) 19:29, 3 December 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I nominated this for a speedy renaming to add a hyphen to match the main article
Non-Chalcedonianism, but this was opposed by the category creator for the reasons explained below. As an opposed speedy nomination, I now move this to a full discussion. I still think it should match the main article, and there has been no move to attempt a name change for the article. All reliable source usages of the term I can find use the hyphen.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose The grounds for the objection are flawed: they assume that the article page is correctly named - it is not. It too should conform to the "Non Chalcedonisism" format. Wiktionary states that "Non meaning not in phrases taken from Latin and some other languages, non is a separate word and is not hyphenated. Examples: non compos mentis, persona non grata." The technical phrase Chalcedonian has Latin roots and would only be used in the context of the Church, which in the West used Latin. It is not in common usage so the hyphenated format would not apply.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I would like to see that reasoning adopted by a consensus of editors at
Talk:Non-Chalcedonianism using
WP:RM before we go down that road. All the non-WP sources I can find use the hyphen.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Make new comments under this line.
Support nom. Non Chalcedonianism is not a Latin phrase, so the Wiktionary advice although correct is irrelevant. The category should follow the article, as the nom states.
Occuli (
talk) 00:24, 2 December 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:Khans in Israel and Palestine
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. Procedural nomination. Moving from speedy section (see below). We're deciding between the two proposals. I am neutral.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 1 December 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:Rail canyons and gorges of 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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is probably part of the railfanning idea. We don't build canyons and gorges to route rail lines through them. Rail lines are run along the lowest grades that are available and those just happen to be along rivers. So this method of classification is not defining.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. In principle, I can't see why these kind of gorges and canyons should be any more defined by a rail line than a highway, and I don't see anyone suggesting that, either.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep since it is a notable (as is
Category:Rail mountain passes of the United States). The invalid reason "we don't build canyons and gorges to route rail lines" is an absurd argument to falsely infer "Rail canyon" refers to construction of the canyon rather than construction of a railway. Likewise, categorization isn't only for "defining" characteristics. Geez, how dim are you folks gonna' be?
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Geez: look up categorization.
Occuli (
talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support deletion. Overdoing it.
Dincher (
talk) 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support deletion. If there was a unique railroad structure built for canyons, that would be different but the actual articles appear to be any canyon with a rail line. Did add a transportation cat to
Soledad Canyon though as that is the focus of the article.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
KeepComment There is a flaw in the logic to delete. Canyons suitable for routing a rail line are much fewer, and harder to find, than those suitable for routing a highway or trail. Especially for through freight lines, there are serious restrictions on both grade and curvature of the route. An example of this is in Southern California, where all the past and present primary highways connecting the southern to central part of the state have used the canyons leading up to
Tejon Pass. However, due to how steep the canyon is that is used for the northern descent from Tejon pass (usually called the grapevine), the railroads are forced to use a much longer route, via
Tehachapi Pass. As such, I disagree that classifying a canyon as "used by rail" is completely meaningless. However, I'm not sure this needs to be expressed as a category, either, as if the article is even semi-developed the rail usage will be mentioned in the article. Will think about this some more.Dave (
talk) 18:25, 5 December 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:Fictional portrayals of the BPD
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 per proposal. -
Hemlock Martinis (
talk) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename (losing second "police" in the detectives category). I recommend this principle be applied to these categories as well. The NYPD officers category probably should be deleted, since it has only one redirect in it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree to above additions of this nomination. All the abbreviations should all be expanded.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I have tagged and added these to the nomination.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename Support all renaming. NYPD officers needs populating, so I request that it not be deleted too hastily
DjlnDjln (
talk) 10:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I've removed the suggestion to delete.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 19:49, 8 December 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:Sierra Crest
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This was kept at
this discussion mainly since it was not correctly added in that group nomination. I'm still proposing deletion since according to the introduction, The Sierra Crest category provides an alphabetical index of wikarticles that describe points of the Sierra Nevada's drainage divide in California. Well, this is exactly what is in the article,
Sierra Crest so while a listify could be suggested it is not needed here. While being on the divide may be noted in the articles, is being on this delineation point defining for the articles?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep (do not delete) since the deletion reason "this is exactly what is in the article" is completely false (the category isn't even populated yet). In particular the notable category for a notable lengthy watershed will provide a concise list, subdivided by alphabetic letter, which the article will never do. Also, not "being ... defining for the articles" is not a valid deletion criterian, as categorization is for multiple topics of articles, not just the defining topic of an article (e.g., a town article is primarily categorized in a town category, but may have other non-primary topics that are subjects of articles such as former county seat, historical event, etc -- and they are categorized in those non-primary categories!)
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, who explains well why this is redundant at best. Not being defining for the articles is a very common and valid criterion for deletion, and it is one that applies here, I think.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Question: The
Sierra Crest article is about the north to south ridgeline of the
Sierra Nevada (U.S.) and yet the articles in the
Category:Sierra Crest are about east to west passes that only interset the ridgeline at a single point. What is the intent of the category? How do you know if an article is related to the Sierra Crest?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:13, 5 December 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:Railroad attractions
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary level of navigation since where appropriate these are already included in local visitor attraction categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep (do not delete) since the deletion reason "Unnecessary" is invalid since
Category:Visitor attractions is a valid category tree, and railroad museums, heritage railroads, etc. are indeed railroad visitor attractions. In particular, the dubious rationale "already included in local visitor attraction categories" is an absurd reason that justifies improperly deleting ALL subcategories of
Category:Visitor attractions (e.g., all parks in
Category:Parks are already in a local category). Does this Vegaswikiuser really think such dim claims are valid (oh wait, I suspect the momentary-lack-of-critical-thinking is quite popular as indicated by the next section)?
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as a container category for the various subcats (which all appear to fit the description of being railroad-related attractions). (It's not unnecessary as it forms a grouping which no other category duplicates.)
Occuli (
talk) 00:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Change terminology culturally bound and biased 'container category' - many parts of world do not have railroads, but railways and even trains in alternate usage - if a container category is really required - go think a better term for a start - so I disagree with both above -
SatuSuro 00:41, 3 December 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:United States railfanning locations
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. This is not
WP:TRAVEL. Also a subjective decision. If they can be documented, then a list should be created.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep (do not delete), as what Wikipedia IS NOT ("this is not WP:TRAVEL") is not a valid deletion reason, since of course Visitor attractions are indeed within the scope of Wikipedia -- it's an entire category tree! Also, since
Category:United States railfanning locations is the "local visitor attraction" category for a national locale, the nominator justified it's existing with his rationalization in the preceeding section!
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oh, good heavens, support. This is like the peak-bagging stuff, only worse.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The "like the peak-bagging stuff" reason is completely false, as the category is not about which people have actual "bagged" (visited) a railroad attraction in the United States, nor is it about who first visited an attraction, etc. In fact, since Railroad attractions are locations, they are 'like the mountain stuff' since mountains are locations which have a complete category tree (which is cross subdivided by state, mountain range, geology, etc.). More lack of critical thinking. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.75.158.153 (
talk •
contribs)
Delete all – being of interest to railfans is incidental, at most, not defining.
Occuli (
talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Question: How do we know if it's a good location to train watch? Is there a good objective reference source out there?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete interesting for those that care about trains, of little value to others.
Dincher (
talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: The same could be said of, say,
Category:Fringillidae: "Interesting for those who care about birds," etc. Or any number of other categories. An "Interesting to some people but not others" argument slips into
WP:WHOCARES territory; just because it's boring to one person doesn't mean it is to another (and vice versa, of course). -
The BushrangerOne ping only 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete main, state, Maryland & California cats: If a railroad enthusiast organization started rating locations or a travel organizations started tracking popularity, then we would have an objective list to reference. At this point this cat just serves as a subjective travel report on locations other trainspotters find useful. This information is better suited to another website.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, Unlike other cats, such as
Category:Rail mountain passes, there is no objective criteria for what is a railfanning location. As such the criteria will be overly subjective.
Dave (
talk) 19:12, 5 December 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.
Single-game achievements in baseball, part 2
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 on the perfect game cat, delete the no hitter one.
Kbdank71 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete both. Being distinctly rare does not change the nature of the latter category. Otherwise, why not
Category:Major League Baseball players who completed an unassisted triple play? I would also, in fact, argue that not many people,
Don Larsen aside, are defined by having thrown a perfect game. And even Larsen is known for when he threw it, not that he did it.
Resolute 18:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Both as defining characteristics of the players involved.
Alansohn (
talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep perfect game category, weak keep the no-hitter category. I would definitely consider pitching a perfect game a defining characteristic, while pitching a no-hitter is less so, but still defining enough to keep as a category, IMO.
VegaDark (
talk) 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete the no-hitter one; ambivalent about the perfect-game one. I don't think pitching a no-hitter is a defining characteristic since they are relatively commonplace. Perfect games are very rare, so I suppose it could be said to be defining for the pitcher, but I'm not sure why a list for both of these wouldn't be more appropriate as well as sufficient.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep both ("pitching a no-hitter [is] relatively commonplace"? Wow, how can anyone make such a preposterous claim?)
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Because it is true, in a relative sense, meaning compared to pitching a perfect game. There have been 20 perfect games in history and 269 no-hitters. At a rate of about two no-hitters every season, versus less than two perfect games every decade, I would call that relatively commonplace.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete both as non-defining characteristics. These make great lists, but are not defining for a player. I can understand the case for an awards category like MVPs and Cy Young Award winners, but many of the best pitchers of all time never threw a no hitter or perfect game (like Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens).--
TM 00:18, 5 December 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:2000s TV shows in India
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:33, 10 December 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:Golden ages
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. I've made the recommendation adjustment to
Golden age (metaphor) before deletion.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, as it is not subjective (use of the term "Golden age" is by numerous authorities in various fields)
75.75.158.153 (
talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Nothing connects these subjects except that some source has referred to them as the "golden age of XXXX".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per others, but checking they are in the much longer list at
Golden age (metaphor) if appropriate.
Johnbod (
talk) 10:18, 8 December 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.
Furman Paladins
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; I'm not sure relisting again will stimulate any comments, so given that this has been listed for over a month now, I think we can invoke
WP:SILENCE.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Similar to the Ole Miss categories below, Furman no longer seems to use "Lady Paladins." Examples
here and
here.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:19, 1 December 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.
Lady Rebels
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. I created most of these
Ole Miss Rebels categories years ago, when the University of Mississippi men's teams were Rebels and the women's teams were Lady Rebels. The school no longer seems to use the term "Lady Rebels" for its women's sports teams. Examples
here,
here, and
here. Note the sequencing of the above nominations, as
Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball would need to lose its former purpose before gaining a new one.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Dincher (
talk) 21:26, 4 December 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.
Manitoba Bisons
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. The first category is comprised entirely of hockey players. The second category is just for subcategories such as
Category:Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players. The Canadian equivalent of
Category:College athletes in the United States by team seems to be the underpopulated
Category:Interuniversity athletes in Canada, which gives no guidance whether a Canadian category should follow the U.S. principle that "athlete" means "active sportsperson" or the more global principle that "athlete" means "track and field participant." This nomination assumes the former, but I'm open to being educated otherwise.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I support merging the University of Manitoba Bisons players to Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players, as that naturally is where they should go. However , I don't support the second renaming. All Universities in Canada have "Category:School X players" as the overarching category. So to keep with the format, I would keep the name as players unless you are proposing to rename all 40 someodd CIS members as "Category:School X athletes" of which I do not support. At least in Canada you hear of hockey players, football players etc. but you never hear them called hockey athletes or football athletes. The only time you hear athletes mentioned is when it is track and field or cross-country.
Shootmaster 44 (
talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the knowledge. All the sport-specific categories in all countries are "School X players," but in the US categories, we've used "School athletes" to define the broader class of sports players.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 01:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support #1, Oppose #2 per Shootmaster. -
DJSasso (
talk) 20:17, 6 December 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:Crocodiles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Technically speaking, not all animals in this category are crocodiles. Some, for example, are aligators. On the other hand, all are crocodilians.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep since wiktionary defines crocodile as including animals in this category: "Any of a variety of related predatory amphibious reptiles, related to the alligator." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.75.158.153 (
talk •
contribs)
Rename per nom. Some of these are alligators, not just "related to the alligator". Alligators are not crocodiles. This clarifies the situation.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 2 December 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:Ornamental plants
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. Subjective inclusion criteria. And by most subjective opinions, this would be ridiculously large if actually populated.
Hesperian 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - support - culturally bound - what could be ornamental in one context could be a weed in another
SatuSuro 00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly OpposeCategory:Ornamental trees deletion; MergeCategory:Ornamental plants, articles only, with
Category:Garden plants, although use in non-garden urban-regional parks, highways, etc. is then minimized. The cat. naming with 'Ornamental plants' probably came from Ornamental Horticulture, a degree program and department/school at colleges and universities, and so not an
Indiscriminate category for many. It's distinguished from agricultural productive horticulture with the term ornamental. You may want to post this delete notice on the
Category:Horticulture and gardening project or portal page, as the term
ornamental plant is widely used in 'coffee table-do it yourself' books and magazines, horticulture industry publications, and academic journals. With
Category:Ornamental trees, Ornamental trees is a widely used term, usually meaning adaptable to urban and garden conditions, used over time-centuries for non-productive aesthetic purposes, and regionally available in the horticulture trade-nurseries. There is no category to merge its articles into. With
Category:Ornamental plants, there are several hundred articles there, not to be lost if the category is deleted, that can use the similar
Category:Garden plants---
Look2See1t a l k → 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly Oppose. If there is reliable sourcing indicating that the plants or trees in question have been, or are being, used ornamentally, then it is reasonable to have these categories, and for those pages to be in the categories. The categories are subjective if pages are placed there based on editor opinion, but they are not subjective (for our purposes) if based on sources. And I can easily imagine readers finding the categories useful, if they would like to find pages based upon ornamental use. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 20:02, 9 December 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:Superstores 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:rename, for now. This entire category tree needs a re-evaluation, as there are multiple categories for the same concept. For now, I'm just cleaning up the capitalization.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed for capitalization or it should be deleted. Imzadi1979→ 04:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. While not in the article names, this is really
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. I did not recommend any merge since I suspect that all of the articles have good parents.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep since wiktionary defines superstore as "An extremely large store, hypermarket." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.75.158.153 (
talk •
contribs)
The contents are actually companies that may own some big-box stores. So while the companies could be classified as big-box, is this defining for the companies? Based on the contents what is included is companies and not stores. So if we really need something in this area it seems to be more accurately named
Category:Companies that operate big-box stores in the United States. Not sure that we want to do that.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:39, 4 December 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:Venue
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article
Venue (law). Obviously just having a category called "
Venue" is quite ambiguous.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
But the category is not about "legal venues", it is about the legal concept of
venue. There is a significant difference. A "legal venue" is an actual place in a specific sense. The legal concept is about where a trial is held in a general sense, not in a specific sense. (For example, asking for a "change of venue" isn't asking if you can move out of courtroom 1A and move upstairs into courtroom 2A. That is a legal venue. It's more like asking to move it to a different city or county.) That is why the article is at
Venue (law), whereas the examples you cite have the articles
sport venue and
music venue.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
rename per nom to match main and correct article
Hmains (
talk) 19:29, 3 December 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.