The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC to categorise for ethnicity by sub-national administrative jurisdiction. Hawaii is but one of 50 states of the U.S. and, moreover, there isn t
Category:People of Hawaiian descent. (
Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent is a different matter, but the one person listed on the nominated cat page,
Kate Ceberano, is, according to her WP bio, not of Native Hawaiian descent)
Mayumashu (
talk) 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Mayumashu touched on all the major points, I think. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 17:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom although I would note that
Nicole Kidman meets the criteria for this category. I would also note that there is the possibility of Australians descended from non-native Hawaiians from before the US annexation of Hawaii. Hawaii was not always part of the US. --
Mattinbgn\talk 23:31, 14 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:Jews by century
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 both. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
DeleteCategory:21st-century Jews: previous discussions have suggested that categories for 21st-century people aren't a good idea, given that almost all of them are 20th-century people as well. Neutral on the more general
Category:Jews by century; I think categories for earlier centuries, like
Category:5th-century Jews, could still be quite useful.
Robofish (
talk) 11:53, 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:African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I, as nominator, would support this alternative
Mayumashu (
talk) 20:10, 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:20th-century electroacoustic composers
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:Speedily deleed per CSD-U1.
7 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete Only contains a user page.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 19:57, 8 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:French Open
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 were more than enough users in support the renaming of the category due to its potential ambiguity. —
ξxplicit 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per Occuli, category names should not be ambiguous, should be very much less ambiguous than anything else due to maintenance issues.
70.29.212.131 (
talk) 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Article titles are established by a far broader cross-section of our editors and should be respected. There is no evidence that there is confusion between theFrench Open (the tennis tournament) and any other sport's tournament. There is every reason to believe that the discrepancy between the article title and that of the category will only create confusion, without helping anything. Let's not let the tail wag the dog; If there is any serious interest in clarifying the subject it should be done after discussion at
the talk page of the article in question.
Alansohn (
talk) 20:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
How could it create confusion and not in fact lessen it? Category page names need that extra layer of clarity (compared with article pages) as they appear listed on article pages without explanation. Very similarly,
WP:Common name applies to article pages and not category pages.
Mayumashu (
talk) 20:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The golf event is much less significant and has no categories relating to it.
Cjc13 (
talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Simply put the current name is ambiguous and the category names should not be ambiguous. Significance is not an issue. While categories and articles tend to share a name, when extra disambiguation is needed for the category it needs to be added. Categories work differently then articles so there can be occasional differences. This should be one of those differences.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
WP:Common name applies to article names, not category names, and the current category name is ambiguous.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
If
WP:Common name does not apply, what is the policy? If there is a separate policy for categories, should it not be specified somewhere? In tennis the categories use the name of the tournament such as
Category:Nice Open,
Category:Lorraine Open and
Category:Open 13. The name change nominated here seems to represent a change of policy and so should be applied consistently to relevant categories rather than just an individual category.
Cjc13 (
talk) 14:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
As far as I know, it's not far enough along in the development of consensus for there to be a policy. This discussion is a good demonstration of why formulating such a policy might be difficult. But my reading of past consensus leaves little double that
WP:Common name does not apply to categories. The other categories you mention—if they are indeed ambiguous, which I'm not sure if they are—could be nominated for discussion at any time.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
My reading would be that
WP:Common name still applies to categories unless there is ambiguity and then it is open to debate. My thoughts are that at the moment there does not seem to be any problem with these categories so I would leave them as they are until there is a definite change in policy. The suggestion of ambiguity in this case seems to have an element of
WP:CRYSTAL.
Cjc13 (
talk) 10:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I dunno, since
Open de France exists, I'm not sure anyone's invocation of ambiguity implicates
WP:CRYSTAL here. The issue as I see it is if the terminology is ambiguous, not if there currently is a category that could be confused with this one. In this regard, category disambiguation has tended to be treated differently than article disambiguation, which has caused no end of consternation for some users, I know.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
For me, there needs to be another category with which it can be confused for it to be ambiguous. Otherwise to avoid ambiguity, it should be perhaps
Category:French Open (tennis tournament). The crystal element is the idea that it is going to cause confusion in the future when there does not appear to be any confusion at present.
Cjc13 (
talk) 13:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I understand, but that approach (it's the one that is taken with articles) implicitly pre-supposes that a user knows what categories already exist on WP. Nobody knows what all the categories are in WP, so I think it is helpful to be more specific. It also means that the more categories that are created, the more pre-existing category names have to change, and ideally these changes would need to be timed to coincide with the creation of the other categories, which is a tough job when 100s of categories are created daily. There is some benefit to just getting things right from the get-go so that the category can be more stable for longer.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
How can we know what is "right" if we do not know what new categories if any would be created? You would then be guessing what new categories would be created, which would seem to be
WP:CRYSTAL. In this case I think the liklihood of change is very small. If the category name is the same as the article name then it can change when the article name is changed, (again in this case I think not very likely).
Cjc13 (
talk) 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Via consensus, I presume. Through that process (which is this process) you can choose one that is self-standingly unambiguous, and then you don't have to worry about the other categories at all. That's my point.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)reply
REname per nom, but convert the present category to a category redirect. The destination category should be given a capnote to guide users to the golf category (if it has a category).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
There is no category for the golf event.
Cjc13 (
talk) 14:15, 18 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:Templates containing Links to wiki's outside of WikiMedia
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:2010 controversies
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is over-broad, and could conceivably include hundreds if not thousands of "controversies" that have taken place in 2010. It now consists of a hodge-podge of mainly trivial dust-ups, ranging from "Boobgate" to "Newsweek gay actor controversy." Has the potential to be used as a POV-pushing mechanism.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as a part of
Category:Controversies by year, but remove articles which are not specifically about controversies (e.g., television series episodes). The nominator makes a valid point about the contents of the category, but that can be remedied without deletion (see
Category:2009 controversies for examples of the types of articles the category should contain). -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep As a part of this scheme; either nominate them all for deletion or keep them all; why nominate just one of these years? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I was testing the waters with this nomination, as the 2010 category seemed the weakest. It is possible that other years might be more salvageable. Note that some recent years have no controversies categories, so this category is somewhat arbitrary and certainly inclusion in this category is wildly arbitrary.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Don't you think the 2010 category might seem to be the "weakest" because the year is not yet half over? Keep.Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:Categorization:"Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject."
These categories have proven useful. The more category schemes there are, the better able to access the encyclopedia. Foundational rule is the goal is to produce the best possible encyclopedia. Remove trivial or unencyclopedic 'controversies'.
User:Pedant (
talk) 22:00, 15 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:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem
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 to
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients. There was no consensus to delete the category. However, the current name of the category was also undesired; as a result, the category will be renamed. —
ξxplicit 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Moved from
WP:CFD/S. List exists at
Yakir Yerushalaim. If no consensus to delete/listify, then rename as originally nominated. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Just noting that previous categories for "honorary citizens" have been deleted/listified.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete/listify. This is the standard thing that has been done int he past with previous "honorary citizen" categories, including those for the USA and Canada.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep: The existing list is partial, and I doubt that it will ever be complete, since many of the recipients (18 per year?) are not on Wikipedia's radar. It seems to me that a category is a way around having a list that is not quite up to par.--
Sreifa (
talk) 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
No, that's not quite right. If there are many recipients that are not notable enough to have a WP article, that is a good reason to have a list, not a category, since then all the recipients can be listed. They won't all show up in the category, and thus the collection of information will be incomplete.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients, per main article. Translation into English is not exact and it should be noted that this is an award received not an actual citizenship. --
Soman (
talk) 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)reply
You're right, of course. It was just obvious to me that cities don't actually grant citizenship in the legal sense. But your proposed rename makes sense to me.--
Sreifa (
talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify well, delete since the list already exists. I'm not convinced that these meet the exemption for
award recipients. This concern about the need for the category is really pointed out in the keep discussion above over why we should have the category instead of the list. I sense some confusion.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep this is an English-Language encyclopedia; categories serve a distinct and separate purpose from lists per
WP:Categorization:"Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject." The reader looking for information here on Yakir Yerushalaim will most likely be looking for English-language content, and searching categories in English Foundational rule is the goal is to produce the best possible encyclopedia. RENAME per User:Davshu: "categories should be in the plural" and redirect all likely spelling/capitalization variants (I did the 4 most obvious to me, I don't speak Hebrew) RE: 'incompleteness', lists and categories don't have to be complete to be useful. Category is for indexing notable Yakirim Yerushalaim (I already said I don't speak Hebrew, I don't read or write it either) with Wikipedia articles, list is about the topic, not as a "repository of links" (
WP:NOT not a link repository.
User:Pedant (
talk) 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete (merging the category into the existing list). Create redirect for an article with the present category name to the destination article (if necessary). This is an award category. This is the normal answer for award categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as a defining honor. The category should co-exist with a corresponding list which can be updated synergistically per
WP:CLN.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am a little confused as to the exact position being taken by a number of the users who have added comments here, in particualar those who propose "Keep". These could be interpreted as "Keep, as is" (namely
Category:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem in the singular); "Keep, but change to plural" (namely
Category:Honorary citizens of Jerusalem) or "keep, but change name to be consistent with article (
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients, which appears to be the view now taken by the creator of the category,
Sreifa). I would ask users to be more specific in their comments here. (Also a number of comments were placed out of order and I have taken the liberty of rearranging these into their correct order.)
Davshul (
talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I favor a Weak Keep, accepting the views of those wishing to retain the category, although acknowledging, as pointed out by
Good Ol’factory, that a list is more comprehensive than a category (and indeed the present list within the article contains all recipients listed in the category plus some others without WP articles). As to the name, I consider that the category should be consistent with the name of article (
Yakir Yerushalaim), but it should clearly indicate that it relates to an award, accordingly I propose the name (
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim award recipients.
Davshul (
talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
On second thought, I think
Pedant's claim has merit - that English readers don't necessarily understand "Yakir Yerushalayim". It might be wise to change the entry, and change the category accordingly. I still don't think a list containing names that will probably never be on WP (on both EN and HE WP) is the way to go, considering that it is incomplete anyway. (forgive me, I'm fairly new here...) --
Sreifa (
talk) 06:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify/delete per
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients. Despite the one assertion that this award recipients category is (unlike most others) defining, I do not see any specific argument explaining how or why it is defining; therefore, I do not see a reason at this time to make an exception to the recommendation to present "recipients of an award ... in a list rather than a category". I do not think that the completeness or incompleteness of the list or of the category needs to be a major consideration in this case, since both are incomplete and the list contains all of the information offered by the category (and can be used to encourage new article content). The fact that this information is incomplete is less-than-desirable, perhaps, but definitely
not unusual and
not a big problem. I'd say: develop the article content first, and consider recreating the category later if the need arises. If kept, rename to
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients per Soman. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Golden Globes winners
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:Planned production electric vehicles
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: As no one has commented on this yet I'm replacing the proposal. First, remove "production" from the 1st target cat, as it does not appear in the
Category:Electric vehicles master cat. Second, merge both into Planned electric automobiles. Question: is there a vital difference between "planned" and "preproduction"? If so, my proposal won't work as is. Second question: will what's happening with
Category:Upcoming aircraft below lead to a CfD for
Category:Upcoming automobiles? It's a parent cat for these, and we ought to be consistent,
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, I just read the introduction for
Category:Upcoming automobiles and think that this should also be upmerged. There are so many restrictions on what it does and does not include, that I'm not sure we need it. Maybe that should be listified since membership needed a citation, so maybe this is one of those that a list would be more valuable.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Proposed electric automobiles per other nominations that are going with proposed. If at some point there is consensus for a preproduction category, it can be created. But I really don't see the need since this would be a transition category. The preproduction aspect may be better served by a list which shows when they were announced and then they are scheduled to be in production with any needed sources.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I support this, especially the use of "Proposed." All vehicles proceed from a "plan," I realize. "Proposed" makes it a little clearer that these are yet-to-be, if ever.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Proposed electric vehicles. The disticntion between those on the drawing board only and those where prototypes are being trialed is not signficant. I prefer vehicles as this would be more inclusive.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:21, 18 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:Jews and Judaism-related controversies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The original category name uses poor grammar, and can be interpreted two ways. The obvious interpretation suggests that the category includes two kinds of articles: (1) articles about Jews; and (2) article about Judaism controversies. But that is not correct: the scope of the category (based on looking at the articles in it) includes only articles about controversies regarding Judiasm and controversies about Jews. So a better name is "Controversies regarding Judaism or Jews" or "Controversies regarding Judaism and Jews". The suggestion with "or" is probably more precise and so that is what is proposed above. But the "and" wording is not bad, either.
Noleander (
talk) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
If there is already a convention for "Foo-related controversies" then I concur we should adhere to the convention. But we still should eliminate the misleading grammar. The suggestions from Black Falcon for
Category:Jews- and Judaism-related controversies or
Category:Judaism-related controversies seem okay. But the first one with "Jews- and Judaism- ..." seems to read very awkwardly. So I think
Category:Judaism-related controversies is the best alternative so far. Also concur with Black Falcon's final statement. --
Noleander (
talk) 16:16, 8 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:Upcoming aircraft
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. Planned is about 6 times more common then upcoming when paired with aircraft. Also this is the more commonly used term for categories about future projects. Also upcoming is ambiguous since it could mean aircraft already available and becoming more popular.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The word "upcoming" seems very informal. "Planned" seems more encyclopedic. Concur with "Planned". --
Noleander (
talk) 13:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Note to closer. Given that proposed is being used in many other nominations, consideration should be given to using that instead of planned. I don't have an issue with using
WP:BOLD if it is closed that way.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment support vegaswikian's idea of using
Category:Proposed aircraft as the cat is only used for projects and design ideas and would not be used once an aircraft becomes a reality.
MilborneOne (
talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support --
Category:Proposed aircraft. I think this could include those where a prototype is under trial, but aircraft should be recategorised out of this when they go into commercial production.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:24, 18 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:Roman era anti-Christian thinkers
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too colloquial a name and too vague of a category. An unneeded category. --
Enterinlast (
talk) 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete If nothing else, "thinkers" is a terrible category. Does it mean there are "anti-Christian non-thinkers"?
Mangoe (
talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree: "thinkers" is a non-ecyclopedic term. Perhaps there is already a category on "Persecutors of Christians" or similar, which covers this topic. --
Noleander (
talk) 16:21, 8 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:Roman era Christian thinkers
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too colloquial a name and too vague of a category. An unneeded category. --
Enterinlast (
talk) 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete There are established categorizations by era that make more sense than this; as it is it merely rolls up
Paul of Tarsus in with the existing (and well-noted) category of
Apostolic fathers.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:54, 8 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:Anti-Christian thinkers
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - 'thinkers' is too vague, and this doesn't seem like a necessary subcategory anyway - all these people could simply be listed in
Category:Anti-Christianity.
Robofish (
talk) 11:58, 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:Christian thinkers
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.
If it's OK for their to be a category called Category:Anti-Christian thinkers, then it seems fitting that there is also a category called Category:Christian thinkers. I think either both should stay or both should be deleted. --
Enterinlast (
talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete "Thinkers" is a wretched supercategory for theologians, etc.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - 'thinkers' is just too vague a word to be used in categories.
Robofish (
talk) 11:59, 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:Jackson family
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: to lessen ambiguity of category name
Mayumashu (
talk) 03:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose this doesn't just cover MJ, his wives and children. And MJ isn't the only very famous person in this family. Janet Jackson once had the largest recording contract in history, AE recently did a reality TV show with people other than Janet and MJ, the Jackson 5 are nothing if not very famous.
76.66.193.224 (
talk) 04:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's not more Michael's family than Rebbie's. Several members of the family are famous--two of them internationally so for several decades--so it's not reasonable to define all of them in terms of one of them. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support a rename to something, or delete it.
Category:Jackson family cannot be assumed to have any connection with Michael as there are dozens of other highly notable
Jacksons, many called Michael and others not even American. (Eg there would be 3 at least in
Jesse Jackson's family category.)
Category:Jackson musical family is a step in the right direction.
Occuli (
talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose title matches that of parent article and the proposed change makes it about one member, not the whole family.
Alansohn (
talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
??Most if not the whole family is/was notable soley for/from their music. And articles abide by
WP:Common name while category pages do, or at least should, not.
Mayumashu (
talk) 15:10, 15 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:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm waiting to hear the point of this rename. Seems like nothing but process wonkery to me. Change it, don't I don't see why anyone would care either way.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The point, thought it may be minor, is that every other user category for sysops takes the form "Wikipedia administrators ...". The change may be an instance of
gnome work (then again, much of non-mainspace editing is), but I don't think it really is process for the sake of process. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 05:59, 8 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:Vegan snacks
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion or upmerge to
Category:Snack foods. This looks to be a random collection of vegan-related articles, some are health food snack producers, some are whole foods (nuts, dried fruit), some are processed snacks. Some entries are questionably vegan (bombay mix, corn nuts, and potato chips are sometimes made with cheese or animal products). A complete list of all vegan snack foods would largely duplicate the snack category or would be exhaustive. Anyone for
Chick-O-Sticks and
Teddy Grahams?
GobonoboTC 02:30, 8 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 Auto Association
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 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:Micromorphous silicon
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom since the article are already categorized appropriately.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:07, 15 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:Wiki music
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 category (the only one of its kind) is an unnecessary layer between
Category:Music and closely-related, high-level categories such as
Category:Music-related lists. True "wiki internal" categories should be placed at the end of the subcategory list by means of
sort keys (all done except for the lists category, which should be sorted at "L") or, in the case of maintenance categories, must be categorized separately. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(
talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Category:Music as an unnecessary subcategory (and arguably an unnecessary self-reference).
Robofish (
talk) 12:02, 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:Modes of transportation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated. —
ξxplicit 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Nopetro created this category and populated it with a scattering of intermodal articles. Of course, modes of transportation does not equal intermodal, and we already have
Category:Transportation by mode. This may not be a bad category to keep and rename, and there is content that could be added to it. What do people think?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
rename/repurpose per nom as there is currently no intermodal category that I can find. Also, the only parent I see is
Category:Transportation and so should this be named.
Hmains (
talk) 16:26, 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:Hiking trails
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. Category name should reflect that trails are often biuse. Separate hiking & backpacking trail categories would largely be redundant.
Gjs238 (
talk) 01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Backpacking combines elements of hiking and camping. I don't see the need to add it, as either it's implied or it needs its own set of categories.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
oppose There is nothing in contents of this category about backpacking.
Hmains (
talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose but I can see where the nominator is coming from. I think Mangoe's explanation is best.
TheGrappler (
talk) 23:31, 13 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:Transparent displays
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. —
ξxplicit 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge to parent categories, per
WP:OC#SMALL. Another one by Nopetro for a single article, in this case, for a display technology called
Organic LED which apparently has the advantage of being transparent on both sides. Until such time as we have more suitable articles for inclusion, delete.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:20, 8 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:Energy conservation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The description of Energy conservation begins: "Energy conservation is the act of using energy in a more efficient and effective manner." And yet this category appears to exist more less independently of Energy efficiency, and judging by the contents, people seem to be as confused as I am as to what goes where. Is there no way we can merge, under one name or another?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I think a hard look at the energy categories is needed.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:03, 15 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:Dinosaur Fauna of Egypt
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There has been a long consensus among
WP:DINO editors to restrict dinosaur-related geographic categories to continent-level Mesozoic entities, instead of modern political nation-level entities (the category for India and Madagascar reflects their shared history as a block of the southern supercontinent
Gondwana). Given the number of articles involved, a dedicated article would probably be more appropriate.
J. Spencer (
talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
J. Spencer (
talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or listify, per J's rationale. Modern political boundaries didn't have much effect on dinosaurs, and we do not have categories like
Category: U.S. dinosaurs. If there are enough Egyptian dinosaurs, an article can be created, but I seem to recall from the deletion discussion of the Arabian dinosaurs category that there's not a whole lot of dinosaurian fossils in the Middle East in general.
Firsfron of Ronchester 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; that
WP:DINO editor consensus is the only sensible approach. There's already an appropriate list article at
Fossils of Egypt. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom since the list exists.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:05, 15 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC to categorise for ethnicity by sub-national administrative jurisdiction. Hawaii is but one of 50 states of the U.S. and, moreover, there isn t
Category:People of Hawaiian descent. (
Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent is a different matter, but the one person listed on the nominated cat page,
Kate Ceberano, is, according to her WP bio, not of Native Hawaiian descent)
Mayumashu (
talk) 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Mayumashu touched on all the major points, I think. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 17:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom although I would note that
Nicole Kidman meets the criteria for this category. I would also note that there is the possibility of Australians descended from non-native Hawaiians from before the US annexation of Hawaii. Hawaii was not always part of the US. --
Mattinbgn\talk 23:31, 14 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:Jews by century
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 both. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
DeleteCategory:21st-century Jews: previous discussions have suggested that categories for 21st-century people aren't a good idea, given that almost all of them are 20th-century people as well. Neutral on the more general
Category:Jews by century; I think categories for earlier centuries, like
Category:5th-century Jews, could still be quite useful.
Robofish (
talk) 11:53, 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:African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I, as nominator, would support this alternative
Mayumashu (
talk) 20:10, 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:20th-century electroacoustic composers
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:Speedily deleed per CSD-U1.
7 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete Only contains a user page.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 19:57, 8 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:French Open
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 were more than enough users in support the renaming of the category due to its potential ambiguity. —
ξxplicit 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per Occuli, category names should not be ambiguous, should be very much less ambiguous than anything else due to maintenance issues.
70.29.212.131 (
talk) 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Article titles are established by a far broader cross-section of our editors and should be respected. There is no evidence that there is confusion between theFrench Open (the tennis tournament) and any other sport's tournament. There is every reason to believe that the discrepancy between the article title and that of the category will only create confusion, without helping anything. Let's not let the tail wag the dog; If there is any serious interest in clarifying the subject it should be done after discussion at
the talk page of the article in question.
Alansohn (
talk) 20:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
How could it create confusion and not in fact lessen it? Category page names need that extra layer of clarity (compared with article pages) as they appear listed on article pages without explanation. Very similarly,
WP:Common name applies to article pages and not category pages.
Mayumashu (
talk) 20:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The golf event is much less significant and has no categories relating to it.
Cjc13 (
talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Simply put the current name is ambiguous and the category names should not be ambiguous. Significance is not an issue. While categories and articles tend to share a name, when extra disambiguation is needed for the category it needs to be added. Categories work differently then articles so there can be occasional differences. This should be one of those differences.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
WP:Common name applies to article names, not category names, and the current category name is ambiguous.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
If
WP:Common name does not apply, what is the policy? If there is a separate policy for categories, should it not be specified somewhere? In tennis the categories use the name of the tournament such as
Category:Nice Open,
Category:Lorraine Open and
Category:Open 13. The name change nominated here seems to represent a change of policy and so should be applied consistently to relevant categories rather than just an individual category.
Cjc13 (
talk) 14:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
As far as I know, it's not far enough along in the development of consensus for there to be a policy. This discussion is a good demonstration of why formulating such a policy might be difficult. But my reading of past consensus leaves little double that
WP:Common name does not apply to categories. The other categories you mention—if they are indeed ambiguous, which I'm not sure if they are—could be nominated for discussion at any time.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
My reading would be that
WP:Common name still applies to categories unless there is ambiguity and then it is open to debate. My thoughts are that at the moment there does not seem to be any problem with these categories so I would leave them as they are until there is a definite change in policy. The suggestion of ambiguity in this case seems to have an element of
WP:CRYSTAL.
Cjc13 (
talk) 10:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I dunno, since
Open de France exists, I'm not sure anyone's invocation of ambiguity implicates
WP:CRYSTAL here. The issue as I see it is if the terminology is ambiguous, not if there currently is a category that could be confused with this one. In this regard, category disambiguation has tended to be treated differently than article disambiguation, which has caused no end of consternation for some users, I know.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
For me, there needs to be another category with which it can be confused for it to be ambiguous. Otherwise to avoid ambiguity, it should be perhaps
Category:French Open (tennis tournament). The crystal element is the idea that it is going to cause confusion in the future when there does not appear to be any confusion at present.
Cjc13 (
talk) 13:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I understand, but that approach (it's the one that is taken with articles) implicitly pre-supposes that a user knows what categories already exist on WP. Nobody knows what all the categories are in WP, so I think it is helpful to be more specific. It also means that the more categories that are created, the more pre-existing category names have to change, and ideally these changes would need to be timed to coincide with the creation of the other categories, which is a tough job when 100s of categories are created daily. There is some benefit to just getting things right from the get-go so that the category can be more stable for longer.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
How can we know what is "right" if we do not know what new categories if any would be created? You would then be guessing what new categories would be created, which would seem to be
WP:CRYSTAL. In this case I think the liklihood of change is very small. If the category name is the same as the article name then it can change when the article name is changed, (again in this case I think not very likely).
Cjc13 (
talk) 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Via consensus, I presume. Through that process (which is this process) you can choose one that is self-standingly unambiguous, and then you don't have to worry about the other categories at all. That's my point.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)reply
REname per nom, but convert the present category to a category redirect. The destination category should be given a capnote to guide users to the golf category (if it has a category).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
There is no category for the golf event.
Cjc13 (
talk) 14:15, 18 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:Templates containing Links to wiki's outside of WikiMedia
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:2010 controversies
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is over-broad, and could conceivably include hundreds if not thousands of "controversies" that have taken place in 2010. It now consists of a hodge-podge of mainly trivial dust-ups, ranging from "Boobgate" to "Newsweek gay actor controversy." Has the potential to be used as a POV-pushing mechanism.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as a part of
Category:Controversies by year, but remove articles which are not specifically about controversies (e.g., television series episodes). The nominator makes a valid point about the contents of the category, but that can be remedied without deletion (see
Category:2009 controversies for examples of the types of articles the category should contain). -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep As a part of this scheme; either nominate them all for deletion or keep them all; why nominate just one of these years? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I was testing the waters with this nomination, as the 2010 category seemed the weakest. It is possible that other years might be more salvageable. Note that some recent years have no controversies categories, so this category is somewhat arbitrary and certainly inclusion in this category is wildly arbitrary.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Don't you think the 2010 category might seem to be the "weakest" because the year is not yet half over? Keep.Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:Categorization:"Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject."
These categories have proven useful. The more category schemes there are, the better able to access the encyclopedia. Foundational rule is the goal is to produce the best possible encyclopedia. Remove trivial or unencyclopedic 'controversies'.
User:Pedant (
talk) 22:00, 15 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:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem
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 to
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients. There was no consensus to delete the category. However, the current name of the category was also undesired; as a result, the category will be renamed. —
ξxplicit 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Moved from
WP:CFD/S. List exists at
Yakir Yerushalaim. If no consensus to delete/listify, then rename as originally nominated. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Just noting that previous categories for "honorary citizens" have been deleted/listified.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete/listify. This is the standard thing that has been done int he past with previous "honorary citizen" categories, including those for the USA and Canada.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep: The existing list is partial, and I doubt that it will ever be complete, since many of the recipients (18 per year?) are not on Wikipedia's radar. It seems to me that a category is a way around having a list that is not quite up to par.--
Sreifa (
talk) 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
No, that's not quite right. If there are many recipients that are not notable enough to have a WP article, that is a good reason to have a list, not a category, since then all the recipients can be listed. They won't all show up in the category, and thus the collection of information will be incomplete.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients, per main article. Translation into English is not exact and it should be noted that this is an award received not an actual citizenship. --
Soman (
talk) 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)reply
You're right, of course. It was just obvious to me that cities don't actually grant citizenship in the legal sense. But your proposed rename makes sense to me.--
Sreifa (
talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify well, delete since the list already exists. I'm not convinced that these meet the exemption for
award recipients. This concern about the need for the category is really pointed out in the keep discussion above over why we should have the category instead of the list. I sense some confusion.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep this is an English-Language encyclopedia; categories serve a distinct and separate purpose from lists per
WP:Categorization:"Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject." The reader looking for information here on Yakir Yerushalaim will most likely be looking for English-language content, and searching categories in English Foundational rule is the goal is to produce the best possible encyclopedia. RENAME per User:Davshu: "categories should be in the plural" and redirect all likely spelling/capitalization variants (I did the 4 most obvious to me, I don't speak Hebrew) RE: 'incompleteness', lists and categories don't have to be complete to be useful. Category is for indexing notable Yakirim Yerushalaim (I already said I don't speak Hebrew, I don't read or write it either) with Wikipedia articles, list is about the topic, not as a "repository of links" (
WP:NOT not a link repository.
User:Pedant (
talk) 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete (merging the category into the existing list). Create redirect for an article with the present category name to the destination article (if necessary). This is an award category. This is the normal answer for award categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as a defining honor. The category should co-exist with a corresponding list which can be updated synergistically per
WP:CLN.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am a little confused as to the exact position being taken by a number of the users who have added comments here, in particualar those who propose "Keep". These could be interpreted as "Keep, as is" (namely
Category:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem in the singular); "Keep, but change to plural" (namely
Category:Honorary citizens of Jerusalem) or "keep, but change name to be consistent with article (
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients, which appears to be the view now taken by the creator of the category,
Sreifa). I would ask users to be more specific in their comments here. (Also a number of comments were placed out of order and I have taken the liberty of rearranging these into their correct order.)
Davshul (
talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I favor a Weak Keep, accepting the views of those wishing to retain the category, although acknowledging, as pointed out by
Good Ol’factory, that a list is more comprehensive than a category (and indeed the present list within the article contains all recipients listed in the category plus some others without WP articles). As to the name, I consider that the category should be consistent with the name of article (
Yakir Yerushalaim), but it should clearly indicate that it relates to an award, accordingly I propose the name (
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim award recipients.
Davshul (
talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
On second thought, I think
Pedant's claim has merit - that English readers don't necessarily understand "Yakir Yerushalayim". It might be wise to change the entry, and change the category accordingly. I still don't think a list containing names that will probably never be on WP (on both EN and HE WP) is the way to go, considering that it is incomplete anyway. (forgive me, I'm fairly new here...) --
Sreifa (
talk) 06:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify/delete per
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients. Despite the one assertion that this award recipients category is (unlike most others) defining, I do not see any specific argument explaining how or why it is defining; therefore, I do not see a reason at this time to make an exception to the recommendation to present "recipients of an award ... in a list rather than a category". I do not think that the completeness or incompleteness of the list or of the category needs to be a major consideration in this case, since both are incomplete and the list contains all of the information offered by the category (and can be used to encourage new article content). The fact that this information is incomplete is less-than-desirable, perhaps, but definitely
not unusual and
not a big problem. I'd say: develop the article content first, and consider recreating the category later if the need arises. If kept, rename to
Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients per Soman. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Golden Globes winners
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:Planned production electric vehicles
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: As no one has commented on this yet I'm replacing the proposal. First, remove "production" from the 1st target cat, as it does not appear in the
Category:Electric vehicles master cat. Second, merge both into Planned electric automobiles. Question: is there a vital difference between "planned" and "preproduction"? If so, my proposal won't work as is. Second question: will what's happening with
Category:Upcoming aircraft below lead to a CfD for
Category:Upcoming automobiles? It's a parent cat for these, and we ought to be consistent,
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, I just read the introduction for
Category:Upcoming automobiles and think that this should also be upmerged. There are so many restrictions on what it does and does not include, that I'm not sure we need it. Maybe that should be listified since membership needed a citation, so maybe this is one of those that a list would be more valuable.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Proposed electric automobiles per other nominations that are going with proposed. If at some point there is consensus for a preproduction category, it can be created. But I really don't see the need since this would be a transition category. The preproduction aspect may be better served by a list which shows when they were announced and then they are scheduled to be in production with any needed sources.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I support this, especially the use of "Proposed." All vehicles proceed from a "plan," I realize. "Proposed" makes it a little clearer that these are yet-to-be, if ever.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Proposed electric vehicles. The disticntion between those on the drawing board only and those where prototypes are being trialed is not signficant. I prefer vehicles as this would be more inclusive.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:21, 18 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:Jews and Judaism-related controversies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The original category name uses poor grammar, and can be interpreted two ways. The obvious interpretation suggests that the category includes two kinds of articles: (1) articles about Jews; and (2) article about Judaism controversies. But that is not correct: the scope of the category (based on looking at the articles in it) includes only articles about controversies regarding Judiasm and controversies about Jews. So a better name is "Controversies regarding Judaism or Jews" or "Controversies regarding Judaism and Jews". The suggestion with "or" is probably more precise and so that is what is proposed above. But the "and" wording is not bad, either.
Noleander (
talk) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
If there is already a convention for "Foo-related controversies" then I concur we should adhere to the convention. But we still should eliminate the misleading grammar. The suggestions from Black Falcon for
Category:Jews- and Judaism-related controversies or
Category:Judaism-related controversies seem okay. But the first one with "Jews- and Judaism- ..." seems to read very awkwardly. So I think
Category:Judaism-related controversies is the best alternative so far. Also concur with Black Falcon's final statement. --
Noleander (
talk) 16:16, 8 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:Upcoming aircraft
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. Planned is about 6 times more common then upcoming when paired with aircraft. Also this is the more commonly used term for categories about future projects. Also upcoming is ambiguous since it could mean aircraft already available and becoming more popular.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The word "upcoming" seems very informal. "Planned" seems more encyclopedic. Concur with "Planned". --
Noleander (
talk) 13:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Note to closer. Given that proposed is being used in many other nominations, consideration should be given to using that instead of planned. I don't have an issue with using
WP:BOLD if it is closed that way.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment support vegaswikian's idea of using
Category:Proposed aircraft as the cat is only used for projects and design ideas and would not be used once an aircraft becomes a reality.
MilborneOne (
talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support --
Category:Proposed aircraft. I think this could include those where a prototype is under trial, but aircraft should be recategorised out of this when they go into commercial production.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:24, 18 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:Roman era anti-Christian thinkers
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too colloquial a name and too vague of a category. An unneeded category. --
Enterinlast (
talk) 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete If nothing else, "thinkers" is a terrible category. Does it mean there are "anti-Christian non-thinkers"?
Mangoe (
talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree: "thinkers" is a non-ecyclopedic term. Perhaps there is already a category on "Persecutors of Christians" or similar, which covers this topic. --
Noleander (
talk) 16:21, 8 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:Roman era Christian thinkers
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too colloquial a name and too vague of a category. An unneeded category. --
Enterinlast (
talk) 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete There are established categorizations by era that make more sense than this; as it is it merely rolls up
Paul of Tarsus in with the existing (and well-noted) category of
Apostolic fathers.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:54, 8 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:Anti-Christian thinkers
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - 'thinkers' is too vague, and this doesn't seem like a necessary subcategory anyway - all these people could simply be listed in
Category:Anti-Christianity.
Robofish (
talk) 11:58, 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:Christian thinkers
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.
If it's OK for their to be a category called Category:Anti-Christian thinkers, then it seems fitting that there is also a category called Category:Christian thinkers. I think either both should stay or both should be deleted. --
Enterinlast (
talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete "Thinkers" is a wretched supercategory for theologians, etc.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - 'thinkers' is just too vague a word to be used in categories.
Robofish (
talk) 11:59, 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:Jackson family
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: to lessen ambiguity of category name
Mayumashu (
talk) 03:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose this doesn't just cover MJ, his wives and children. And MJ isn't the only very famous person in this family. Janet Jackson once had the largest recording contract in history, AE recently did a reality TV show with people other than Janet and MJ, the Jackson 5 are nothing if not very famous.
76.66.193.224 (
talk) 04:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's not more Michael's family than Rebbie's. Several members of the family are famous--two of them internationally so for several decades--so it's not reasonable to define all of them in terms of one of them. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support a rename to something, or delete it.
Category:Jackson family cannot be assumed to have any connection with Michael as there are dozens of other highly notable
Jacksons, many called Michael and others not even American. (Eg there would be 3 at least in
Jesse Jackson's family category.)
Category:Jackson musical family is a step in the right direction.
Occuli (
talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose title matches that of parent article and the proposed change makes it about one member, not the whole family.
Alansohn (
talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
??Most if not the whole family is/was notable soley for/from their music. And articles abide by
WP:Common name while category pages do, or at least should, not.
Mayumashu (
talk) 15:10, 15 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:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm waiting to hear the point of this rename. Seems like nothing but process wonkery to me. Change it, don't I don't see why anyone would care either way.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The point, thought it may be minor, is that every other user category for sysops takes the form "Wikipedia administrators ...". The change may be an instance of
gnome work (then again, much of non-mainspace editing is), but I don't think it really is process for the sake of process. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 05:59, 8 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:Vegan snacks
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion or upmerge to
Category:Snack foods. This looks to be a random collection of vegan-related articles, some are health food snack producers, some are whole foods (nuts, dried fruit), some are processed snacks. Some entries are questionably vegan (bombay mix, corn nuts, and potato chips are sometimes made with cheese or animal products). A complete list of all vegan snack foods would largely duplicate the snack category or would be exhaustive. Anyone for
Chick-O-Sticks and
Teddy Grahams?
GobonoboTC 02:30, 8 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 Auto Association
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 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:Micromorphous silicon
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom since the article are already categorized appropriately.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:07, 15 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:Wiki music
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 category (the only one of its kind) is an unnecessary layer between
Category:Music and closely-related, high-level categories such as
Category:Music-related lists. True "wiki internal" categories should be placed at the end of the subcategory list by means of
sort keys (all done except for the lists category, which should be sorted at "L") or, in the case of maintenance categories, must be categorized separately. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(
talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Category:Music as an unnecessary subcategory (and arguably an unnecessary self-reference).
Robofish (
talk) 12:02, 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:Modes of transportation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated. —
ξxplicit 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Nopetro created this category and populated it with a scattering of intermodal articles. Of course, modes of transportation does not equal intermodal, and we already have
Category:Transportation by mode. This may not be a bad category to keep and rename, and there is content that could be added to it. What do people think?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
rename/repurpose per nom as there is currently no intermodal category that I can find. Also, the only parent I see is
Category:Transportation and so should this be named.
Hmains (
talk) 16:26, 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:Hiking trails
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. Category name should reflect that trails are often biuse. Separate hiking & backpacking trail categories would largely be redundant.
Gjs238 (
talk) 01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Backpacking combines elements of hiking and camping. I don't see the need to add it, as either it's implied or it needs its own set of categories.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
oppose There is nothing in contents of this category about backpacking.
Hmains (
talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose but I can see where the nominator is coming from. I think Mangoe's explanation is best.
TheGrappler (
talk) 23:31, 13 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:Transparent displays
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. —
ξxplicit 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge to parent categories, per
WP:OC#SMALL. Another one by Nopetro for a single article, in this case, for a display technology called
Organic LED which apparently has the advantage of being transparent on both sides. Until such time as we have more suitable articles for inclusion, delete.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:20, 8 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:Energy conservation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The description of Energy conservation begins: "Energy conservation is the act of using energy in a more efficient and effective manner." And yet this category appears to exist more less independently of Energy efficiency, and judging by the contents, people seem to be as confused as I am as to what goes where. Is there no way we can merge, under one name or another?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I think a hard look at the energy categories is needed.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:03, 15 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:Dinosaur Fauna of Egypt
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. —
ξxplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There has been a long consensus among
WP:DINO editors to restrict dinosaur-related geographic categories to continent-level Mesozoic entities, instead of modern political nation-level entities (the category for India and Madagascar reflects their shared history as a block of the southern supercontinent
Gondwana). Given the number of articles involved, a dedicated article would probably be more appropriate.
J. Spencer (
talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
J. Spencer (
talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or listify, per J's rationale. Modern political boundaries didn't have much effect on dinosaurs, and we do not have categories like
Category: U.S. dinosaurs. If there are enough Egyptian dinosaurs, an article can be created, but I seem to recall from the deletion discussion of the Arabian dinosaurs category that there's not a whole lot of dinosaurian fossils in the Middle East in general.
Firsfron of Ronchester 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; that
WP:DINO editor consensus is the only sensible approach. There's already an appropriate list article at
Fossils of Egypt. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom since the list exists.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:05, 15 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.