December 16
Category:Greek directors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. The category was not tagged. That said, I've moved all the individual articles into Category:Greek theatre directors and Category:Greek film directors, and moved both of those categories into this one. The Category:DIrectors by nationality category contains several categories like this one, so this has ample reason to be retained.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Greek directors (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Already were created Category:Greek theatre directors and Category:Greek film directors.-- Movses ( talk) 12:03, 24 December 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:Baseball players with kidney stones
- 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:Baseball players with kidney stones (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. intersection of unrelated and non-defining characteristics. TM 22:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteMost articles don't even cite the claim to begin with, but in any case I'm dubious that it's notable that anyone had kidney stones. Mangoe ( talk) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCTrivial as an intersection of two unrelated attributes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCT. – ukexpat ( talk) 02:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable intersection. Roscelese ( talk) 04:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, what is this I don't even... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – along with any other categories about people with kidney stones. Occuli ( talk) 09:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per PILE-IT-ON and WTF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This one belongs in WP:BJAODN. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This must be posted at WP:BJAODN! Less non-defining characteristic would be hard to conceive of. __ meco ( talk) 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment—I created this category as there is an inordinately high incidence of kidney stones among baseball players. But I have no issue with it being deleted. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:42, 22 December 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:Public universities in Oklahoma
- 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: Converted to article at List of public universities in Oklahoma. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Convert to article Category:Public universities in Oklahoma to article List of public universities in Oklahoma
- Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a good faith attempt by a new user to create a list. TN X Man 20:38, 16 December 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:Portal 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Portal Software to Category:Portal software
- Nominator's rationale: to comply with naming conventions ukexpat ( talk) 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- rename per nom 'Portal Software' is not known to be a proper noun, a name of a particular person, place or thing. Hmains ( talk) 20:09, 25 December 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:Fight Club
- 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) 21:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Fight Club (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only four articles--at least three of them are well-linked to one another. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment What category would the article Interpretations of Fight Club be placed into if this is deleted? Lugnuts ( talk) 19:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Response Category:Film theory? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Themes in works of fiction? There is also Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey which could do with categorising in the same way. Cjc13 ( talk) 14:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete They are all closely connected and linked to each other. No reason for a category like this that is unlikely to grow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per David. Only a small set of articles and no expected growth. I would have no problem with "See also" sections tying some of these articles together. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:43, 20 December 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:Military awards and decorations
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. The creation of the target category has removed the need for this category's renaming.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Military awards and decorations to Category:Military awards and decorations by country
- Nominator's rationale: Rename
- Oppose It may make sense to create the latter category but there are a number of articles about military decorations in general. Mangoe ( talk) 16:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – as it isn't Category:Military awards and decorations by country. Occuli ( talk) 00:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- oppose create Category:Military awards and decorations by country as a subcategory, which can be done by anyone at any time. Hmains ( talk) 19:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Since there seems to be universal agreement that the "by country" category ought to exists I have created it and have started moving articles to the new category. Therefore this discussion needs to turn to the possibility of merging the two categories. Mangoe ( talk) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment since by country is a sub-category of this one, and generic articles on military awards cannot be identified as by a single country, I think this nomination has run its course. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:54, 18 December 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.
Mount Saint Mary's
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's University to Category:Mount St. Mary's University
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's University alumni to Category:Mount St. Mary's University alumni
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's University faculty to Category:Mount St. Mary's University faculty
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's Mountaineers men's basketball to Category:Mount St. Mary's Mountaineers men's basketball
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category section waffles between "Mount Saint Mary's" and "Mount St. Mary's." The head article is at Mount St. Mary's University, however.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- No votes for Mt. Saint Mary's? Rename all to " Mount St. Mary's," the form the institution itself uses online.- choster ( talk) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- In theory we could also go Mt. St. Mary's. However, since the main article is Mount St. Mary's, and while
St. Louis,
St. Paul and
St. George will all take you to articles, I am less sure that
Mt. Clemens will.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all the links work. Mt. Clemens and St. Paul however redirtect to Mount Clemens and Saint Paul. St. Louis and St. George are under that spelling as the article names. I am wordering if it is worth dealing with the Mount St. Mary's verses Mount Saint Mary's issue in isolation, or if what needs to occur is a discussion of whether such categories like
Saunt Louis University,
St. Vincent College alumni and the like should all be standardized. One question is, are there standard usages in the question of St. Louis/Saint Louis, or is
Saint Louis University deliberately spelled that way even in documents that mention that it is in the city of St. Louis. Is there a deliberate perpetuation of two styles here, or do we just have an inconsistency in wikipedia. Put another way, if we tried to make wikipedia usage standard, would we be creating a precedent of English usage that does not exist? See also aricles such as
St. Anthony,
St. Mary's College of Maryland,
St. Joseph, Missouri,
St. Charles, Idaho and even
Mount St. Mary's.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The last link is the most interesting, because we find some articles are St. while orthers are Saint. The article connected with this debate is St. but directly below a link to a different college that is Saint.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, but look at the logo and the sign photo on the Mount St. Mary's University page. That gives me confidence in that spelling.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The last link is the most interesting, because we find some articles are St. while orthers are Saint. The article connected with this debate is St. but directly below a link to a different college that is Saint.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all the links work. Mt. Clemens and St. Paul however redirtect to Mount Clemens and Saint Paul. St. Louis and St. George are under that spelling as the article names. I am wordering if it is worth dealing with the Mount St. Mary's verses Mount Saint Mary's issue in isolation, or if what needs to occur is a discussion of whether such categories like
Saunt Louis University,
St. Vincent College alumni and the like should all be standardized. One question is, are there standard usages in the question of St. Louis/Saint Louis, or is
Saint Louis University deliberately spelled that way even in documents that mention that it is in the city of St. Louis. Is there a deliberate perpetuation of two styles here, or do we just have an inconsistency in wikipedia. Put another way, if we tried to make wikipedia usage standard, would we be creating a precedent of English usage that does not exist? See also aricles such as
St. Anthony,
St. Mary's College of Maryland,
St. Joseph, Missouri,
St. Charles, Idaho and even
Mount St. Mary's.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- There also are examples like how the article Sisters of St. Joseph is in the Category:Congregation of the Sisters of Saint Joseph John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Should have been renamed when the article was moved (without protest) from Mount Saint Mary's University in 2008. Occuli ( talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 18:17, 20 December 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:Wd930's games
-
Category:Wd930's games (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This empty category appears to serve no purpose. Sandstein 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete in 2 days when it qualifies for C1, or delete if it becomes populated before then. Inappropriate category. VegaDark ( talk) 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I speedied it. Cat is useless, empty, and just one of many time-wastings by a sock-drawer. DMacks ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 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.
Scottish Unionist Party
- 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) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Scottish Unionist Party MPs to Category:Unionist Party (Scotland) MPs
- Category:Scottish Unionist Party politicians to Category:Unionist Party (Scotland) politicians
- Nominator's rationale: per head article Unionist Party (Scotland). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- WT:SCO has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per standard practice that cats ought to be named after parent article. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 07:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and to match article name; this is pretty much a standard convention now and makes the finding of categories much more predictable when you start from the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:13, 22 December 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:Territorial Army
- 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) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Territorial Army to Category:Territorial Army (United Kingdom)
- Nominator's rationale: to match head article Territorial Army (United Kingdom), and disambiguate from other entities called Territorial Army. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to resolve ambiguity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - because I'd say that the British Territorial Army is the primary subject and
Territorial Army (which
Territorial Army (disambiguation) actually redirects to) ought to redirect to
Territorial Army (United Kingdom) rather than be a disambigiation page.
GraemeLeggett (
talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree about the primacy of the UK force, but you are free to propose a page move using WP:RM. However, so long as the head article is at Territorial Army (United Kingdom), the categories should be named accordingly.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
- Support categories should not be ambiguous, regardless of however ambiguous articles are named, unless you want to manually patrol the category every day to fix miscategorizations. 184.144.167.122 ( talk) 01:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per 184.144.167.122. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 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.
Arena Football League
- 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) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) commissioners to Category:Arena Football League commissioners
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) lists to Category:Arena Football League lists
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) divisions to Category:Arena Football League divisions
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) seasons to Category:Arena Football League seasons
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) executives to Category:Arena Football League executives
- Propose merging:
- Nominator's rationale: All of these categories were brought up for discussion on March 3, 2010 because at the time, the Arena Football League from 1987–2008 was considered to be a seperate entity from the league that was formed in 2009, launched as "Arena Football 1" but later renamed "Arena Football League". Since that time, a discussion in late August resulted in a consensus that the "old" AFL and "new" AFL was in fact the same AFL, and the articles that the AFL article had been split into were merged back together. However these categories remain split up, which is why I propose they be renamed or merged back together, whichever case is necessary. Tampabay721 ( talk) 00:55, 16 December 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:International military aircraft 2010-2019
- 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: Withdrawn as moot - category is now populated. I will say that I'm a bit shocked and disappointed that several users would support keeping in the face of policy, however. 69.59.200.77 ( talk) 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:International military aircraft 2010-2019 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1 - Empty category that has been empty for more than 4 days, and doesn't meet any of the exceptions. I tried tagging it for speedy, but have been reverted twice by users who claim the category is "useful". It would be useful if populated, but until this category is ready to populate it shouldn't have been created. Note that even a "keep" result here won't prevent this from meeting the speedy deletion criteria, so this seems rather pointless, although ANI told me to come here. This is no different from any other category that has been empty for 4 days that doesn't meet the exceptions to C1, and so should be deleted, no matter how great the category might be if populated. No prejudice to recreating it if/when populated. 69.59.200.77 ( talk) 00:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – the nom is entirely correct. There's not much point in having a category which merely announces that there are as yet no International military aircraft in the 2010s. The empty category tag is also inappropriately placed: that is for maintenance categories which ought to be empty. Occuli ( talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from meeting the C1 criteria, is there any actual benefit to deleting the category? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The C1 deletion criteria exists, I gather, because retaining empty categories causes clutter and confusion for users looking through categories to find something. So, deletion of this would be working towards the goal of avoiding that. Other than that, no, I have no problems with the merits of the category. 69.59.200.77 ( talk) 00:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep part of a chronological series; WP:IAR. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Although there are no pages or subcategories in the category, the template {{ Milairnd}} is in there, which links to Category:Russian military aircraft 2010-2019, which does have content. So even though its main usefulness will be in the future, it is already slightly useful now for navigation to/from related categories. In a series like this, a non-existent category for a current time period might cause more confusion than a category that only links to other articles indirectly. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - This category is part of a large reorganization of categories that was decided by consensus over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft over many months. I previously invited the nominator to discuss this over there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft so he could understand the issues, but he declined to do so. As a note I have informed both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft of this discussion so as to get the fullest possible debate and consensus. Also in response to the nominator's comment "Note that even a "keep" result here won't prevent this from meeting the speedy deletion criteria, so this seems rather pointless" - this is not correct as consensus here will overrule the CSD criteria. See also WP:IAR as what we are trying to accomplish is the building of an encyclopedia, not slavish adherence to rules that hinder that goal. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - First, apologies for my improper removal of the CSD tag, I hadn't even realised that I had created the category in the first place it's been so long. Secondly, as noted above, this is part of an overall tree of categories (and when I created the category, there was an article in it, which was my whole point of creating it. I don't remember what the aircraft was, but clearly somebody moved it out of the category at some point - wonder why?). - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct – this diff emptied several (sub)categories which were then deleted as empty. I have no objection to any of these categories myself (unless they are empty). I trust that Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft is not really bent upon the creation of whole trees of empty categories, for the greater glory of wikipedia. Occuli ( talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this can be wrapped up as the category is no longer empty and therefore there is no reason to delete it. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:09, 16 December 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.
December 16
Category:Greek directors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. The category was not tagged. That said, I've moved all the individual articles into Category:Greek theatre directors and Category:Greek film directors, and moved both of those categories into this one. The Category:DIrectors by nationality category contains several categories like this one, so this has ample reason to be retained.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Greek directors (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Already were created Category:Greek theatre directors and Category:Greek film directors.-- Movses ( talk) 12:03, 24 December 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:Baseball players with kidney stones
- 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:Baseball players with kidney stones (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. intersection of unrelated and non-defining characteristics. TM 22:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteMost articles don't even cite the claim to begin with, but in any case I'm dubious that it's notable that anyone had kidney stones. Mangoe ( talk) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCTrivial as an intersection of two unrelated attributes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCT. – ukexpat ( talk) 02:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable intersection. Roscelese ( talk) 04:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, what is this I don't even... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – along with any other categories about people with kidney stones. Occuli ( talk) 09:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per PILE-IT-ON and WTF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This one belongs in WP:BJAODN. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This must be posted at WP:BJAODN! Less non-defining characteristic would be hard to conceive of. __ meco ( talk) 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment—I created this category as there is an inordinately high incidence of kidney stones among baseball players. But I have no issue with it being deleted. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:42, 22 December 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:Public universities in Oklahoma
- 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: Converted to article at List of public universities in Oklahoma. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Convert to article Category:Public universities in Oklahoma to article List of public universities in Oklahoma
- Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a good faith attempt by a new user to create a list. TN X Man 20:38, 16 December 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:Portal 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Portal Software to Category:Portal software
- Nominator's rationale: to comply with naming conventions ukexpat ( talk) 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- rename per nom 'Portal Software' is not known to be a proper noun, a name of a particular person, place or thing. Hmains ( talk) 20:09, 25 December 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:Fight Club
- 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) 21:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Fight Club (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only four articles--at least three of them are well-linked to one another. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment What category would the article Interpretations of Fight Club be placed into if this is deleted? Lugnuts ( talk) 19:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Response Category:Film theory? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Themes in works of fiction? There is also Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey which could do with categorising in the same way. Cjc13 ( talk) 14:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete They are all closely connected and linked to each other. No reason for a category like this that is unlikely to grow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per David. Only a small set of articles and no expected growth. I would have no problem with "See also" sections tying some of these articles together. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:43, 20 December 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:Military awards and decorations
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. The creation of the target category has removed the need for this category's renaming.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Military awards and decorations to Category:Military awards and decorations by country
- Nominator's rationale: Rename
- Oppose It may make sense to create the latter category but there are a number of articles about military decorations in general. Mangoe ( talk) 16:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – as it isn't Category:Military awards and decorations by country. Occuli ( talk) 00:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- oppose create Category:Military awards and decorations by country as a subcategory, which can be done by anyone at any time. Hmains ( talk) 19:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Since there seems to be universal agreement that the "by country" category ought to exists I have created it and have started moving articles to the new category. Therefore this discussion needs to turn to the possibility of merging the two categories. Mangoe ( talk) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment since by country is a sub-category of this one, and generic articles on military awards cannot be identified as by a single country, I think this nomination has run its course. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:54, 18 December 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.
Mount Saint Mary's
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's University to Category:Mount St. Mary's University
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's University alumni to Category:Mount St. Mary's University alumni
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's University faculty to Category:Mount St. Mary's University faculty
- Propose renaming Category:Mount Saint Mary's Mountaineers men's basketball to Category:Mount St. Mary's Mountaineers men's basketball
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category section waffles between "Mount Saint Mary's" and "Mount St. Mary's." The head article is at Mount St. Mary's University, however.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- No votes for Mt. Saint Mary's? Rename all to " Mount St. Mary's," the form the institution itself uses online.- choster ( talk) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- In theory we could also go Mt. St. Mary's. However, since the main article is Mount St. Mary's, and while
St. Louis,
St. Paul and
St. George will all take you to articles, I am less sure that
Mt. Clemens will.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all the links work. Mt. Clemens and St. Paul however redirtect to Mount Clemens and Saint Paul. St. Louis and St. George are under that spelling as the article names. I am wordering if it is worth dealing with the Mount St. Mary's verses Mount Saint Mary's issue in isolation, or if what needs to occur is a discussion of whether such categories like
Saunt Louis University,
St. Vincent College alumni and the like should all be standardized. One question is, are there standard usages in the question of St. Louis/Saint Louis, or is
Saint Louis University deliberately spelled that way even in documents that mention that it is in the city of St. Louis. Is there a deliberate perpetuation of two styles here, or do we just have an inconsistency in wikipedia. Put another way, if we tried to make wikipedia usage standard, would we be creating a precedent of English usage that does not exist? See also aricles such as
St. Anthony,
St. Mary's College of Maryland,
St. Joseph, Missouri,
St. Charles, Idaho and even
Mount St. Mary's.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The last link is the most interesting, because we find some articles are St. while orthers are Saint. The article connected with this debate is St. but directly below a link to a different college that is Saint.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, but look at the logo and the sign photo on the Mount St. Mary's University page. That gives me confidence in that spelling.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The last link is the most interesting, because we find some articles are St. while orthers are Saint. The article connected with this debate is St. but directly below a link to a different college that is Saint.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all the links work. Mt. Clemens and St. Paul however redirtect to Mount Clemens and Saint Paul. St. Louis and St. George are under that spelling as the article names. I am wordering if it is worth dealing with the Mount St. Mary's verses Mount Saint Mary's issue in isolation, or if what needs to occur is a discussion of whether such categories like
Saunt Louis University,
St. Vincent College alumni and the like should all be standardized. One question is, are there standard usages in the question of St. Louis/Saint Louis, or is
Saint Louis University deliberately spelled that way even in documents that mention that it is in the city of St. Louis. Is there a deliberate perpetuation of two styles here, or do we just have an inconsistency in wikipedia. Put another way, if we tried to make wikipedia usage standard, would we be creating a precedent of English usage that does not exist? See also aricles such as
St. Anthony,
St. Mary's College of Maryland,
St. Joseph, Missouri,
St. Charles, Idaho and even
Mount St. Mary's.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- There also are examples like how the article Sisters of St. Joseph is in the Category:Congregation of the Sisters of Saint Joseph John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Should have been renamed when the article was moved (without protest) from Mount Saint Mary's University in 2008. Occuli ( talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 18:17, 20 December 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:Wd930's games
-
Category:Wd930's games (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This empty category appears to serve no purpose. Sandstein 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete in 2 days when it qualifies for C1, or delete if it becomes populated before then. Inappropriate category. VegaDark ( talk) 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I speedied it. Cat is useless, empty, and just one of many time-wastings by a sock-drawer. DMacks ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 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.
Scottish Unionist Party
- 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) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Scottish Unionist Party MPs to Category:Unionist Party (Scotland) MPs
- Category:Scottish Unionist Party politicians to Category:Unionist Party (Scotland) politicians
- Nominator's rationale: per head article Unionist Party (Scotland). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- WT:SCO has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per standard practice that cats ought to be named after parent article. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 07:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and to match article name; this is pretty much a standard convention now and makes the finding of categories much more predictable when you start from the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:13, 22 December 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:Territorial Army
- 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) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Territorial Army to Category:Territorial Army (United Kingdom)
- Nominator's rationale: to match head article Territorial Army (United Kingdom), and disambiguate from other entities called Territorial Army. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rename to resolve ambiguity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - because I'd say that the British Territorial Army is the primary subject and
Territorial Army (which
Territorial Army (disambiguation) actually redirects to) ought to redirect to
Territorial Army (United Kingdom) rather than be a disambigiation page.
GraemeLeggett (
talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree about the primacy of the UK force, but you are free to propose a page move using WP:RM. However, so long as the head article is at Territorial Army (United Kingdom), the categories should be named accordingly.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
- Support categories should not be ambiguous, regardless of however ambiguous articles are named, unless you want to manually patrol the category every day to fix miscategorizations. 184.144.167.122 ( talk) 01:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per 184.144.167.122. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 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.
Arena Football League
- 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) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) commissioners to Category:Arena Football League commissioners
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) lists to Category:Arena Football League lists
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) divisions to Category:Arena Football League divisions
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) seasons to Category:Arena Football League seasons
- Category:Arena Football League (1987–2008) executives to Category:Arena Football League executives
- Propose merging:
- Nominator's rationale: All of these categories were brought up for discussion on March 3, 2010 because at the time, the Arena Football League from 1987–2008 was considered to be a seperate entity from the league that was formed in 2009, launched as "Arena Football 1" but later renamed "Arena Football League". Since that time, a discussion in late August resulted in a consensus that the "old" AFL and "new" AFL was in fact the same AFL, and the articles that the AFL article had been split into were merged back together. However these categories remain split up, which is why I propose they be renamed or merged back together, whichever case is necessary. Tampabay721 ( talk) 00:55, 16 December 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:International military aircraft 2010-2019
- 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: Withdrawn as moot - category is now populated. I will say that I'm a bit shocked and disappointed that several users would support keeping in the face of policy, however. 69.59.200.77 ( talk) 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:International military aircraft 2010-2019 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1 - Empty category that has been empty for more than 4 days, and doesn't meet any of the exceptions. I tried tagging it for speedy, but have been reverted twice by users who claim the category is "useful". It would be useful if populated, but until this category is ready to populate it shouldn't have been created. Note that even a "keep" result here won't prevent this from meeting the speedy deletion criteria, so this seems rather pointless, although ANI told me to come here. This is no different from any other category that has been empty for 4 days that doesn't meet the exceptions to C1, and so should be deleted, no matter how great the category might be if populated. No prejudice to recreating it if/when populated. 69.59.200.77 ( talk) 00:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – the nom is entirely correct. There's not much point in having a category which merely announces that there are as yet no International military aircraft in the 2010s. The empty category tag is also inappropriately placed: that is for maintenance categories which ought to be empty. Occuli ( talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from meeting the C1 criteria, is there any actual benefit to deleting the category? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The C1 deletion criteria exists, I gather, because retaining empty categories causes clutter and confusion for users looking through categories to find something. So, deletion of this would be working towards the goal of avoiding that. Other than that, no, I have no problems with the merits of the category. 69.59.200.77 ( talk) 00:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep part of a chronological series; WP:IAR. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Although there are no pages or subcategories in the category, the template {{ Milairnd}} is in there, which links to Category:Russian military aircraft 2010-2019, which does have content. So even though its main usefulness will be in the future, it is already slightly useful now for navigation to/from related categories. In a series like this, a non-existent category for a current time period might cause more confusion than a category that only links to other articles indirectly. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - This category is part of a large reorganization of categories that was decided by consensus over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft over many months. I previously invited the nominator to discuss this over there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft so he could understand the issues, but he declined to do so. As a note I have informed both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft of this discussion so as to get the fullest possible debate and consensus. Also in response to the nominator's comment "Note that even a "keep" result here won't prevent this from meeting the speedy deletion criteria, so this seems rather pointless" - this is not correct as consensus here will overrule the CSD criteria. See also WP:IAR as what we are trying to accomplish is the building of an encyclopedia, not slavish adherence to rules that hinder that goal. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - First, apologies for my improper removal of the CSD tag, I hadn't even realised that I had created the category in the first place it's been so long. Secondly, as noted above, this is part of an overall tree of categories (and when I created the category, there was an article in it, which was my whole point of creating it. I don't remember what the aircraft was, but clearly somebody moved it out of the category at some point - wonder why?). - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct – this diff emptied several (sub)categories which were then deleted as empty. I have no objection to any of these categories myself (unless they are empty). I trust that Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft is not really bent upon the creation of whole trees of empty categories, for the greater glory of wikipedia. Occuli ( talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this can be wrapped up as the category is no longer empty and therefore there is no reason to delete it. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:09, 16 December 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.