Category:Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
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.
Strong Keep I think it's important to keep the name that an organization has given itself. Beside, when you link to the category, it provides the extended explantion that the nominator requests. Should we also change the {{National Collegiate Athletic Association}} to "a semi- voluntary association of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations and individuals that organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States and Canada" si that people will now what it stands for? I think not. Again, Keep.
Ccson (
talk)
02:10, 3 June 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:Fossil derived gases
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This one from
User:Nopetro (in one of his former sockpuppet identities) is one that I'm less sure about. But it seems to me to be a small and arbitrary sub-set of Fossil fuels, based on the fact that at normally occurring temperatures and pressures, these fuels are gases. Does this not open the door to
Category:Fossil derived liquids? Also, I'm not at all sure "fossil derived" is the most accurate term.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:03, 2 June 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:College of William and Mary
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: this is closer to this university's official name which is 'The College of William & Mary in Virginia', and the article page is named this -
The College of William & Mary. (I ll later list subcategories for this category as speedy renames, should this nomination pass.)
Mayumashu (
talk)
16:56, 2 June 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:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete; I see no indication from the
parent article that this is an especially significant institution, nor any indication that it is categorically significant (i.e., defining) to the inductees, who are apparently eligible for inclusion on the basis of any connection to the state, not necessarily for having had a sports career in Alabama (cf.
Jesse Owens). As I noted in the deletion review, anyone who wants to support the existence of this category would be better off first expanding and properly sourcing the article (which currently lacks any truly neutral third-party sources), particularly with content regarding how inclusion this state sports hall of fame is regarded generally. If the article barely stands alone as a notable topic, it certainly can't support a category. postdlf (talk)
17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't think a precedent has really been established. There are many sub-national halls of fame categories: this category alone lists 17 of them:
Category:State halls of fame in the United States. (There are more that are not in that category, but that's a good sampling.) The previous category was deleted based on the
WP:OCAT#AWARD guideline, but I think halls of fame are not truly individual awards; a hall of fame category seems more of a lifetime honor and therefore an association of people. If we want to discuss whether all sub-national hall of fame categories should be deleted, let's have that discussion and invite people who have created and/or worked with those categories to discuss. We are likely to get more discussion that way. I don't think it's valid to delete this category based on an inconsistently-applied precedent. --
Esprqii (
talk)
18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete – I too think that this is not likely to be defining ... an analogy might be an honorary degree. I expect Jesse Owens would be in dozens of such halls.
Occuli (
talk)
19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Every time these have been discussed, they have resulted in deletion. This doesn't imply that every single one has been discussed thus far, so some may exist. Per the guidelines of
OC#AWARDS, this should be deleted unless it is a particularly significant induction/award, similar in status to the Academy Awards or Nobel Prizes. In my opinion it is not. This is because, as Occuli says, it is very unlikely to be defining for the inductees.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I guess what I've been trying to say, perhaps inaptly, is that (1) in my opinion, the
WP:OCAT#AWARD guideline (which I, too, cited) shouldn't apply to hall of fame categories; and that (2) a more sweeping guideline about minor halls of fame in general, such as sub-country specific ones, should be discussed to draw in a possibly wider audience who may not see this one. Perhaps this is not the place to make such a suggestion of widening the scope, but it seems like we could avoid these case-by-case discussions if there were a wider discussion and/or better guideline. Since people keep making the categories, I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't think it could be made clearer. --
Esprqii (
talk)
23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I know you're responding to others' comments that are largely relying on past deletion discussions, but I presented above a rationale for deletion that doesn't rest upon precedent, which I consider beside the point in a sense. Even if state sports halls of fame categories had never been discussed before, no one has made any showing that this particular hall of fame merits a category, let alone that all halls of fame merit categories, particularly if you're trying to lump in non-sports halls of fame for some reason. I simply don't see any reason to think that all state halls of fame are necessarily created equal; even limited to sports, the
Texas Sports Hall of Fame, for example, seems of a different character than the Alabama one, both in its origin and in its induction criteria. It's possible that some merit categories; it's possible that none merit categories. postdlf (talk)
03:57, 3 June 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:Terrorism in Vietnam
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: A recently created category with no parent article and no reliable sources that argue these were acts of terrorism. The Viet Cong, for instance, were a guerrilla group and are not considered terrorists. This whole thing smacks of POV-pushing. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose as part of a series (
Terrorism by country). If an article does not belong, then that article should be removed from the category and, if necessary, its inclusion should be discussed on the article's talk page. If the category becomes empty because of that, then it can be tagged with {{db-empty}} and
speedily deleted. For what it's worth, I agree that the
Viet Cong are more accurately identified as a "guerrilla organization", though admittedly they did carry out acts of terrorism. -- Black Falcon(
talk)22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose The incident
1965 Saigon bombing is described as being terrorism in the Evening Standard article cited. Viet Cong should be removed from the category and that would leave the category with a single article. But still more than nothing so worthy of being kept. Another article that would fit the category is
Phoenix Program.
Munci (
talk)
23:14, 11 June 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:Bridges over the Saint John River (New Brunswick)
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. Name of category should reflect that some of the bridges in this category are bi-national. As the river is disambiguated (Bay of Fundy), and the parent category is disambiguated (Bay of Fundy), it seems logical and appropriate to disambiguate this subcategory (Bay of Fundy) as well.
Gjs238 (
talk)
11:42, 2 June 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:Wanted
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. There was no consensus to delete the category, though more discussion in a subsequent nomination may be useful (especially if one or more category members are deleted). -- Black Falcon(
talk)22:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is a small category for a comic book mini-series that is largely populated by articles of questionable notability. There seems little likelihood that the category will expand given that it's been five years since the end of publication. There is a navigational template that links all of the articles.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
To be clear, my deletion argument is not based on the possible notability of the articles. It is based on this category being small with no likelihood of expansion. This is a six-issue limited series that stopped publishing five years ago. It's not like this is a viable comics franchise that's going to continue to generate fodder for new articles.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
20:33, 10 June 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:Apostle Paul
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 main article has been at a variety of names, but some time ago was
moved toPaul of Tarsus and has been stable there for a number of months, so it makes sense to match the category name to the article name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The move request for the article was started after this nomination was started, you know. But in any case, the article is not going to move. As I said, it's been at the current name for some time now, and every nomination to move it fails. It looks like this one will fail too.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
REname as nom. Having looked at the requested move, it is clear that there is major opposition to the move to "St Paul". HOwever, that discussion should be closed before this one is, and this one should follow its ourcome.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:21, 3 June 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:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Three kinds of karma
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 "three kinds of karma" is a concept in Hinduism, but the idea of karma exists outside of Hinduism, so this name needs to be narrowed a bit. At the same time, it's already overly narrow in a different way, being limited to just the "three kinds". I suggest renaming this to
Category:Karma in Hinduism, which more clearly sets out what the category is about and doesn't limit it to articles about only the "three kinds". A similarly-named
Category:Karma in Jainism already exists.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:55, 2 June 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:Plug-in hybrid vehicles by country
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:Upmerge Another category by
User:Nopetro that does not seem to serve a useful purpose, at least at this time, as there are no "by country" articles or subcategories herein. Just four articles that can be upmerged to the parent, I believe.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Suggest another course I think it should be
Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and both categories should be merged into it. There are other sorts of plug-in hybrid vehicles, things that use the plug to run the starter motor for instance, which are hybrid CNG/diesel. And the common abbreviation for this type of vehicle is "PHEV" - note the "E".
76.66.193.224 (
talk)
03:36, 2 June 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.
Planned transport
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. More "future" infrastructure projects, as in
this nomination and
this one. Another possibility is "proposed." Between these three nominations, that should be most all of the "Future infrastructure" set.—
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:51, 2 June 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:Electric vehicle legislation
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:User:Nopetro created these two categories within a few minutes of each other. They are basically synonymous and surely can be merged. I don't particularly care which way, but I'm suggesting "incentives" be the target cat, as it's a bit broader. These are both sparsely populated cats, with virtually identical contents.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or listify because none of the included articles are specifically about electric vehicles; all rather cover a much broader range of subject matter, with some not even limited to energy policy. It seems rather myopic and arbitrary to categorize a very broad spending act such as the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, for example, by one very specific area of spending. Even those laws specifically dealing with energy policy cover it much more broadly than just electric cars; take a look at the summary list of just "key provisions" of
one such act to see how many categories this level of specificity would produce per article. Further,
Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission) is a governmental agency and so doesn't fit in either of them as an "incentive" or as "legislation". Finally, even if articles just about electric vehicle legislation could be found or created, the rather small numbers of articles in much more general categories, such as
Category:Renewable-energy law or
Category:United States federal energy legislation, illustrate well that more specific categories are, at the very least, unnecessary at this time. It makes a lot more sense to address this through article content than through categories. postdlf (talk)
20:01, 2 June 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:Post-rock songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
That was my first reaction, too, except that the parent article states in the lead: "As a musical genre, post-rock is arguably too vague to be useful." If that's so, it gets harder to make the argument that this can be a defining and non-arbitrary grouping.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:34, 2 June 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:Libertarian organisations based 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.
CFDS states that "Differences between British and American spelling (eg, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors," it does make an allowance for a possible X of Y change if the category tree uses the proposed spelling, but in this case the parent is the non-US
Category:Libertarian organisations.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
14:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
"United States" isn't an adjective. If concision is a concern, drop "based" from the name, as I don't know that the word is really adding anything. postdlf (talk)
19:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Based in is applied to organizations since in the past, without that qualifier, editors were adding the category to every country where the organization operated. That was OCAT.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:45, 4 June 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:Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
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.
Strong Keep I think it's important to keep the name that an organization has given itself. Beside, when you link to the category, it provides the extended explantion that the nominator requests. Should we also change the {{National Collegiate Athletic Association}} to "a semi- voluntary association of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations and individuals that organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States and Canada" si that people will now what it stands for? I think not. Again, Keep.
Ccson (
talk)
02:10, 3 June 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:Fossil derived gases
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This one from
User:Nopetro (in one of his former sockpuppet identities) is one that I'm less sure about. But it seems to me to be a small and arbitrary sub-set of Fossil fuels, based on the fact that at normally occurring temperatures and pressures, these fuels are gases. Does this not open the door to
Category:Fossil derived liquids? Also, I'm not at all sure "fossil derived" is the most accurate term.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:03, 2 June 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:College of William and Mary
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: this is closer to this university's official name which is 'The College of William & Mary in Virginia', and the article page is named this -
The College of William & Mary. (I ll later list subcategories for this category as speedy renames, should this nomination pass.)
Mayumashu (
talk)
16:56, 2 June 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:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete; I see no indication from the
parent article that this is an especially significant institution, nor any indication that it is categorically significant (i.e., defining) to the inductees, who are apparently eligible for inclusion on the basis of any connection to the state, not necessarily for having had a sports career in Alabama (cf.
Jesse Owens). As I noted in the deletion review, anyone who wants to support the existence of this category would be better off first expanding and properly sourcing the article (which currently lacks any truly neutral third-party sources), particularly with content regarding how inclusion this state sports hall of fame is regarded generally. If the article barely stands alone as a notable topic, it certainly can't support a category. postdlf (talk)
17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't think a precedent has really been established. There are many sub-national halls of fame categories: this category alone lists 17 of them:
Category:State halls of fame in the United States. (There are more that are not in that category, but that's a good sampling.) The previous category was deleted based on the
WP:OCAT#AWARD guideline, but I think halls of fame are not truly individual awards; a hall of fame category seems more of a lifetime honor and therefore an association of people. If we want to discuss whether all sub-national hall of fame categories should be deleted, let's have that discussion and invite people who have created and/or worked with those categories to discuss. We are likely to get more discussion that way. I don't think it's valid to delete this category based on an inconsistently-applied precedent. --
Esprqii (
talk)
18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete – I too think that this is not likely to be defining ... an analogy might be an honorary degree. I expect Jesse Owens would be in dozens of such halls.
Occuli (
talk)
19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Every time these have been discussed, they have resulted in deletion. This doesn't imply that every single one has been discussed thus far, so some may exist. Per the guidelines of
OC#AWARDS, this should be deleted unless it is a particularly significant induction/award, similar in status to the Academy Awards or Nobel Prizes. In my opinion it is not. This is because, as Occuli says, it is very unlikely to be defining for the inductees.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I guess what I've been trying to say, perhaps inaptly, is that (1) in my opinion, the
WP:OCAT#AWARD guideline (which I, too, cited) shouldn't apply to hall of fame categories; and that (2) a more sweeping guideline about minor halls of fame in general, such as sub-country specific ones, should be discussed to draw in a possibly wider audience who may not see this one. Perhaps this is not the place to make such a suggestion of widening the scope, but it seems like we could avoid these case-by-case discussions if there were a wider discussion and/or better guideline. Since people keep making the categories, I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't think it could be made clearer. --
Esprqii (
talk)
23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I know you're responding to others' comments that are largely relying on past deletion discussions, but I presented above a rationale for deletion that doesn't rest upon precedent, which I consider beside the point in a sense. Even if state sports halls of fame categories had never been discussed before, no one has made any showing that this particular hall of fame merits a category, let alone that all halls of fame merit categories, particularly if you're trying to lump in non-sports halls of fame for some reason. I simply don't see any reason to think that all state halls of fame are necessarily created equal; even limited to sports, the
Texas Sports Hall of Fame, for example, seems of a different character than the Alabama one, both in its origin and in its induction criteria. It's possible that some merit categories; it's possible that none merit categories. postdlf (talk)
03:57, 3 June 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:Terrorism in Vietnam
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: A recently created category with no parent article and no reliable sources that argue these were acts of terrorism. The Viet Cong, for instance, were a guerrilla group and are not considered terrorists. This whole thing smacks of POV-pushing. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose as part of a series (
Terrorism by country). If an article does not belong, then that article should be removed from the category and, if necessary, its inclusion should be discussed on the article's talk page. If the category becomes empty because of that, then it can be tagged with {{db-empty}} and
speedily deleted. For what it's worth, I agree that the
Viet Cong are more accurately identified as a "guerrilla organization", though admittedly they did carry out acts of terrorism. -- Black Falcon(
talk)22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose The incident
1965 Saigon bombing is described as being terrorism in the Evening Standard article cited. Viet Cong should be removed from the category and that would leave the category with a single article. But still more than nothing so worthy of being kept. Another article that would fit the category is
Phoenix Program.
Munci (
talk)
23:14, 11 June 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:Bridges over the Saint John River (New Brunswick)
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. Name of category should reflect that some of the bridges in this category are bi-national. As the river is disambiguated (Bay of Fundy), and the parent category is disambiguated (Bay of Fundy), it seems logical and appropriate to disambiguate this subcategory (Bay of Fundy) as well.
Gjs238 (
talk)
11:42, 2 June 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:Wanted
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. There was no consensus to delete the category, though more discussion in a subsequent nomination may be useful (especially if one or more category members are deleted). -- Black Falcon(
talk)22:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is a small category for a comic book mini-series that is largely populated by articles of questionable notability. There seems little likelihood that the category will expand given that it's been five years since the end of publication. There is a navigational template that links all of the articles.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
To be clear, my deletion argument is not based on the possible notability of the articles. It is based on this category being small with no likelihood of expansion. This is a six-issue limited series that stopped publishing five years ago. It's not like this is a viable comics franchise that's going to continue to generate fodder for new articles.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
20:33, 10 June 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:Apostle Paul
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 main article has been at a variety of names, but some time ago was
moved toPaul of Tarsus and has been stable there for a number of months, so it makes sense to match the category name to the article name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The move request for the article was started after this nomination was started, you know. But in any case, the article is not going to move. As I said, it's been at the current name for some time now, and every nomination to move it fails. It looks like this one will fail too.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
REname as nom. Having looked at the requested move, it is clear that there is major opposition to the move to "St Paul". HOwever, that discussion should be closed before this one is, and this one should follow its ourcome.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:21, 3 June 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:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Three kinds of karma
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 "three kinds of karma" is a concept in Hinduism, but the idea of karma exists outside of Hinduism, so this name needs to be narrowed a bit. At the same time, it's already overly narrow in a different way, being limited to just the "three kinds". I suggest renaming this to
Category:Karma in Hinduism, which more clearly sets out what the category is about and doesn't limit it to articles about only the "three kinds". A similarly-named
Category:Karma in Jainism already exists.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:55, 2 June 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:Plug-in hybrid vehicles by country
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:Upmerge Another category by
User:Nopetro that does not seem to serve a useful purpose, at least at this time, as there are no "by country" articles or subcategories herein. Just four articles that can be upmerged to the parent, I believe.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Suggest another course I think it should be
Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and both categories should be merged into it. There are other sorts of plug-in hybrid vehicles, things that use the plug to run the starter motor for instance, which are hybrid CNG/diesel. And the common abbreviation for this type of vehicle is "PHEV" - note the "E".
76.66.193.224 (
talk)
03:36, 2 June 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.
Planned transport
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. More "future" infrastructure projects, as in
this nomination and
this one. Another possibility is "proposed." Between these three nominations, that should be most all of the "Future infrastructure" set.—
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:51, 2 June 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:Electric vehicle legislation
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:User:Nopetro created these two categories within a few minutes of each other. They are basically synonymous and surely can be merged. I don't particularly care which way, but I'm suggesting "incentives" be the target cat, as it's a bit broader. These are both sparsely populated cats, with virtually identical contents.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or listify because none of the included articles are specifically about electric vehicles; all rather cover a much broader range of subject matter, with some not even limited to energy policy. It seems rather myopic and arbitrary to categorize a very broad spending act such as the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, for example, by one very specific area of spending. Even those laws specifically dealing with energy policy cover it much more broadly than just electric cars; take a look at the summary list of just "key provisions" of
one such act to see how many categories this level of specificity would produce per article. Further,
Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission) is a governmental agency and so doesn't fit in either of them as an "incentive" or as "legislation". Finally, even if articles just about electric vehicle legislation could be found or created, the rather small numbers of articles in much more general categories, such as
Category:Renewable-energy law or
Category:United States federal energy legislation, illustrate well that more specific categories are, at the very least, unnecessary at this time. It makes a lot more sense to address this through article content than through categories. postdlf (talk)
20:01, 2 June 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:Post-rock songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
That was my first reaction, too, except that the parent article states in the lead: "As a musical genre, post-rock is arguably too vague to be useful." If that's so, it gets harder to make the argument that this can be a defining and non-arbitrary grouping.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:34, 2 June 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:Libertarian organisations based 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.
CFDS states that "Differences between British and American spelling (eg, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors," it does make an allowance for a possible X of Y change if the category tree uses the proposed spelling, but in this case the parent is the non-US
Category:Libertarian organisations.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
14:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
"United States" isn't an adjective. If concision is a concern, drop "based" from the name, as I don't know that the word is really adding anything. postdlf (talk)
19:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Based in is applied to organizations since in the past, without that qualifier, editors were adding the category to every country where the organization operated. That was OCAT.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:45, 4 June 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:Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.