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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The name of this province is simply "North West", not "North West Province". The main article is at
North West (South African province), so this proposal will result in the category and article matching. Finally, "
North West Province" is somewhat ambiguous. (If this category is renamed, I will nominate the subcategories for renaming to match it, since they currently use a variety of formats.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:34, 25 May 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:Canadian Meteorites
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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Since meteorites aren't really "native" to countries—having fallen from space—I think it would make more sense to just say that they are "found in FOO" rather than being of FOOian nationality. If someone has a more elegant suggestion, it would be welcome. (If kept, rename to
Category:Canadian meteorites.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - Good Ol’factory is correct. Meteorites are by definition aliens, and as inanimate objects they cannot avail themselves of
naturalization. So the most we can say is that they were found somewhere. (I'm surprised there are no other sub-cats for other countries.)
Cgingold (
talk) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the nom as reasoned.
Mayumashu (
talk) 22:37, 27 May 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:DJ-Kicks
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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: It's about albums. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:08, 25 May 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:Popular songs based on classical works
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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. If a song that is based on a classical work has an article on wikipedia, that at least makes it notable, and so it shouldn't really matter whether the song is deemed "popular".
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Perhaps I'm misreading the nominator's stated concern, but in this context the word "popular" doesn't refer to "popularity" but rather to "
popular music". So I'm not sure I see a problem with the category as named.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Per
popular music itself, "popular music" is not a specific genre, and the existing members of the category are not representing a specific genre, but are a disparate group linked only as "Songs based on classical works". --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - I created this category and simply used the wording I did to contrast
classical music and
popular music. I don't feel strongly either way about changing it, but I do think the current wording is more descriptive.
InnocuousPseudonym (
talk) 04:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep As Is - What's been overlooked here is the fact that there is a very substantial group of categories under the umbrella of
Category:Popular music, which I've just added as a parent cat for this one. As InnocuousPseudonym points out, the wording was chosen to contrast popular with classical. Absent that distinction, the category turns to mush.
Cgingold (
talk) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment/Question. There is no category for classical songs only classical compositions, therefore a comparable category would be Category:Classical compositions based on classical works (which doesn't exist). I don't see the need for the disambiguation. What articles would be placed into the category by changing "popular songs" to "songs" that would turn it to mush? --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't follow your reasoning here. Maybe "Category:Popular songs based on classical compositions" would be more in line with the terminology of other music categories than the present wording. Also, for what it's worth, there is a category for classical songs:
Category:Songs in classical music.
Thank you. I assumed there would be something under
Category:Classical music, so just looked there. But, again, are there m/any articles that could possibly be categorized as "Songs in classical music based on classical works" that would result in any confusion here? --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 23:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Responding to your question, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, there are many classical works based on popular or folk songs (see Missa L'homme armé and Tahiti Trot for a couple of examples), and there are some classical instrumental works based on art songs (e.g. Death and the Maiden Quartet) and arias (e.g. Chopin's Variations on 'La ci darem la mano'). But there is no significant, distinct body of "classical (art) songs based on classical works".
InnocuousPseudonym (
talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep As Is - The current wording which emphasizes the classical/popular distinction is clearer and more descriptive than the proposed revision.
InnocuousPseudonym (
talk) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep or change to "Pop songs" which is perhaps the colloquial category. Pop song composers have frequently mined the resources of classical music, so that this is a useful category. The Nom seeks to produce a more fuzzy (and hence less useful) category. If there are some contents that are not Pop songs, they can be removed or placed in another category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:43, 30 May 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:Votes for deletion templates
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: VFD doesn't exist anymore since some time, and if there's any point in keeping some of the templates here, they should be renamed to "AFD" and recategorized to
Category:Articles for deletion templates.
The Evil IP address (
talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep it doesn't matter that VfD doesn't matter anymore, VfD archives still exist, and atleast some of the templates are used on them.
70.29.208.247 (
talk) 04:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
ξxplicit 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. These were useful tools at the time and can still serve as models in the future - they are therefore still useful (or potentially so). The simplest solution would be to add a headnote to the category. 'VFD is now obsolete/redundant and these templates are no longer recommended. They are kept here to maintain links with archived material'.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 08:00, 26 May 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:Saint John River (New Brunswick)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The Saint John River is bi-national and empties into the Bay of Fundy. In the very least, the category should be named Saint John River (Maine-New Brunswick). This is normal Wiki river naming convention. If a river is in two states, the page is not disambiguated by only one state, it is disambiguated by the body of water the river feeds or by both states, the former however is a "cleaner" approach. In this case the river forms the border of two countries, let alone two states/provinces.
Gjs238 (
talk) 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support noting that the article is now at
Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) (since yesterday). (I would withdraw support if the article move proves to be contentious, of which so far there is no sign. The logic of the nom does seem entirely reasonable.)
Occuli (
talk) 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support: it seems odd that the category, concerning two states/provinces-two countries, was disambiguated by one province to begin with. Randomly looking through other river articles and categories the majority disambiguate by parent waterbody/river or with two states as noted above.
Washington Lake Association (
talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —
Washington Lake Association (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. 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.
Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young)
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:Wikipedians who hate Internet Explorer
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates
WP:USERCAT as this category does not facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. The fact that this is a "hate" category only sets a terrible precedent. —
ξxplicit 05:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom's reference to
WP:USERCAT. Also, "hating" a particular web-browser is not a defining characteristic.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 07:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete and creator has agreed to deletion on his own talk page. —
fetch·comms 22:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, add {{for}} to dab. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:17, 25 May 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:Vermont (US band) albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support This is clearly the best option. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to Category:Vermont (band) [foo] per above.-
choster (
talk) 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)reply
REname something so that the article and category match.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:45, 30 May 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:E-mail servers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I see the redunancy now. I don't know why I didn't catch that other category in my searches. And I don't think we can redirect categories. -- /
MWOAP|
Notify Me\ 12:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom. In fact we can have category redirects; they used to gove some one the trouble of patrolling them, but I gather that a bot now does that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:47, 30 May 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:Endonyms
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. This is an excellent idea for a category, but as it stands, it only has one legitimate member (
Éire). No prejudice against recreation if a number of other solid articles come together.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: With one exception (
Éire), every member of this category is either a redirect, or a disambiguation page. Per
the Manual of Style, disambiguation pages should not be categorized except in disambig-specific or similar categories, because a disambiguation page is not an article about any topic. For example,
Deutschland (disambiguation) is not an article providing information about the endonym "Deutschland". The disambiguation pages could just be removed, but it's hard for me to see how a category consisting entirely of redirects (okay, and
Éire) falls into the acceptable situations described at
Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, or how such a category is particularly helpful.
List of countries by native names seems to serve the same purpose in a much better way.
Propaniac (
talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
ξxplicit 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
weak keep and clean up. MOS, as of today, says: "Most disambiguation pages do not need to be placed into any categories other than those generated by the template. If such cases do arise (for example, specific categories of personal names that do not have corresponding template parameters), then the additional categories should be placed after the template.". Here we have a case where (a) each major endonym has a clear primary meaning, that of being an endonym for a geographical or ethnic entity, thus establishing a "common denominator" for a category (b) even when they develop into proper articles, each endonym has a trail of secondary meanings: there are hundreds of things named after countries. I think that this is enough to keep the category afloat. Occuli has already noted that the category is underpopulated with legitimate entries and, on the contraries, contains redirects that, imo, should not be there. So there are two options: either keep, fill up and clean up (who, me?!) or delete and forget.
East of Borschov (
talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support deletion. Although this could be expanded of course and could become a massive category, per Occuli's reasoning I don't think we should be categorizing based this aspect of the name—it's too much like categorization of things based on their name rather than their common characteristics, which is what categories are generally supposed to do.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Latino civil rights activists
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:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights. I make the following observations: (1) There is a consensus that this needs to be renamed. (2) There is a consensus to use "for" rather than "of". (3) There is no consensus in this discussion what comes after "for" and before "civil rights". Therefore, I am defaulting to "Hispanic and Latino American" for the reasons given by Mayumashu—"Hispanic and Latino American" is the standard generic term in WP for this concept. Adding "... in the United States" would be redundant to "American".Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I do not recognize a speedy criterion here; in any event, "Activists for Latino civil rights" would make better sense.-
choster (
talk) 06:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Object These suggestions don't make sense gramatically. Also, a discussion of how all Hispanic or Latino categories need to be designated should be done. --
evrik(
talk) 14:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Make new comments below this line.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to "Activists for Latino civil rights" in this case as less ambiguous. Agree that a broader discussion on naming conventions for "Latino" categories would be useful.
Gonzonoir (
talk) 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Question -- Is Latino the ethnicity of the activists or of those who need the civil rights? The answer will determine what the correct target is. It certainly needs to be renamed somehow.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:50, 30 May 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:British ice hockey competitions
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 would have 'tournaments' a sub-cat of 'competitions' as the former are held at one setting and occur in a shorter duration, so I can t support this rename either. Catting here is about comprising North American and European English use of the terms competition, tournament, league, etc. but it can be done. 'by competition' really needs to be the supra cat
Mayumashu (
talk) 16:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Although I agree that competitions should be the supra cat of tournaments,
Category:Tournaments and
Category:Sports tournaments have been redirects to
Category:Competitions and
Category:Sports competitions respectively for a long time, so the terms seem to be treated equally on Wikipedia. Hence, my nomination is legit as per the current standard, and a change to this should maybe be taken to a full CfD.
lil2mas (
talk) 19:49, 15 May 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:Canadian football history
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. The proposal makes sense; the sole opposition appears to be based on either a misunderstanding or personal animosity.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, well, the category creator has responded to previous efforts by me to address some issues with his categorization with a string of personal attacks on GOF's talk page, which I've chosen to ignore. I'm not surprised he's objecting here, although I agree it's not at all clear why: other than he has decided I do not have the right to in any way edit
his work.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The name of this province is simply "North West", not "North West Province". The main article is at
North West (South African province), so this proposal will result in the category and article matching. Finally, "
North West Province" is somewhat ambiguous. (If this category is renamed, I will nominate the subcategories for renaming to match it, since they currently use a variety of formats.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:34, 25 May 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:Canadian Meteorites
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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Since meteorites aren't really "native" to countries—having fallen from space—I think it would make more sense to just say that they are "found in FOO" rather than being of FOOian nationality. If someone has a more elegant suggestion, it would be welcome. (If kept, rename to
Category:Canadian meteorites.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - Good Ol’factory is correct. Meteorites are by definition aliens, and as inanimate objects they cannot avail themselves of
naturalization. So the most we can say is that they were found somewhere. (I'm surprised there are no other sub-cats for other countries.)
Cgingold (
talk) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the nom as reasoned.
Mayumashu (
talk) 22:37, 27 May 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:DJ-Kicks
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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: It's about albums. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:08, 25 May 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:Popular songs based on classical works
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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. If a song that is based on a classical work has an article on wikipedia, that at least makes it notable, and so it shouldn't really matter whether the song is deemed "popular".
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Perhaps I'm misreading the nominator's stated concern, but in this context the word "popular" doesn't refer to "popularity" but rather to "
popular music". So I'm not sure I see a problem with the category as named.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Per
popular music itself, "popular music" is not a specific genre, and the existing members of the category are not representing a specific genre, but are a disparate group linked only as "Songs based on classical works". --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - I created this category and simply used the wording I did to contrast
classical music and
popular music. I don't feel strongly either way about changing it, but I do think the current wording is more descriptive.
InnocuousPseudonym (
talk) 04:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep As Is - What's been overlooked here is the fact that there is a very substantial group of categories under the umbrella of
Category:Popular music, which I've just added as a parent cat for this one. As InnocuousPseudonym points out, the wording was chosen to contrast popular with classical. Absent that distinction, the category turns to mush.
Cgingold (
talk) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment/Question. There is no category for classical songs only classical compositions, therefore a comparable category would be Category:Classical compositions based on classical works (which doesn't exist). I don't see the need for the disambiguation. What articles would be placed into the category by changing "popular songs" to "songs" that would turn it to mush? --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't follow your reasoning here. Maybe "Category:Popular songs based on classical compositions" would be more in line with the terminology of other music categories than the present wording. Also, for what it's worth, there is a category for classical songs:
Category:Songs in classical music.
Thank you. I assumed there would be something under
Category:Classical music, so just looked there. But, again, are there m/any articles that could possibly be categorized as "Songs in classical music based on classical works" that would result in any confusion here? --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 23:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Responding to your question, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, there are many classical works based on popular or folk songs (see Missa L'homme armé and Tahiti Trot for a couple of examples), and there are some classical instrumental works based on art songs (e.g. Death and the Maiden Quartet) and arias (e.g. Chopin's Variations on 'La ci darem la mano'). But there is no significant, distinct body of "classical (art) songs based on classical works".
InnocuousPseudonym (
talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep As Is - The current wording which emphasizes the classical/popular distinction is clearer and more descriptive than the proposed revision.
InnocuousPseudonym (
talk) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep or change to "Pop songs" which is perhaps the colloquial category. Pop song composers have frequently mined the resources of classical music, so that this is a useful category. The Nom seeks to produce a more fuzzy (and hence less useful) category. If there are some contents that are not Pop songs, they can be removed or placed in another category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:43, 30 May 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:Votes for deletion templates
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: VFD doesn't exist anymore since some time, and if there's any point in keeping some of the templates here, they should be renamed to "AFD" and recategorized to
Category:Articles for deletion templates.
The Evil IP address (
talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep it doesn't matter that VfD doesn't matter anymore, VfD archives still exist, and atleast some of the templates are used on them.
70.29.208.247 (
talk) 04:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
ξxplicit 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. These were useful tools at the time and can still serve as models in the future - they are therefore still useful (or potentially so). The simplest solution would be to add a headnote to the category. 'VFD is now obsolete/redundant and these templates are no longer recommended. They are kept here to maintain links with archived material'.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 08:00, 26 May 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:Saint John River (New Brunswick)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The Saint John River is bi-national and empties into the Bay of Fundy. In the very least, the category should be named Saint John River (Maine-New Brunswick). This is normal Wiki river naming convention. If a river is in two states, the page is not disambiguated by only one state, it is disambiguated by the body of water the river feeds or by both states, the former however is a "cleaner" approach. In this case the river forms the border of two countries, let alone two states/provinces.
Gjs238 (
talk) 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support noting that the article is now at
Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) (since yesterday). (I would withdraw support if the article move proves to be contentious, of which so far there is no sign. The logic of the nom does seem entirely reasonable.)
Occuli (
talk) 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support: it seems odd that the category, concerning two states/provinces-two countries, was disambiguated by one province to begin with. Randomly looking through other river articles and categories the majority disambiguate by parent waterbody/river or with two states as noted above.
Washington Lake Association (
talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —
Washington Lake Association (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. 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.
Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young)
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:Wikipedians who hate Internet Explorer
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates
WP:USERCAT as this category does not facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. The fact that this is a "hate" category only sets a terrible precedent. —
ξxplicit 05:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom's reference to
WP:USERCAT. Also, "hating" a particular web-browser is not a defining characteristic.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 07:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete and creator has agreed to deletion on his own talk page. —
fetch·comms 22:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, add {{for}} to dab. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:17, 25 May 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:Vermont (US band) albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support This is clearly the best option. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to Category:Vermont (band) [foo] per above.-
choster (
talk) 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)reply
REname something so that the article and category match.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:45, 30 May 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:E-mail servers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I see the redunancy now. I don't know why I didn't catch that other category in my searches. And I don't think we can redirect categories. -- /
MWOAP|
Notify Me\ 12:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom. In fact we can have category redirects; they used to gove some one the trouble of patrolling them, but I gather that a bot now does that.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:47, 30 May 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:Endonyms
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. This is an excellent idea for a category, but as it stands, it only has one legitimate member (
Éire). No prejudice against recreation if a number of other solid articles come together.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: With one exception (
Éire), every member of this category is either a redirect, or a disambiguation page. Per
the Manual of Style, disambiguation pages should not be categorized except in disambig-specific or similar categories, because a disambiguation page is not an article about any topic. For example,
Deutschland (disambiguation) is not an article providing information about the endonym "Deutschland". The disambiguation pages could just be removed, but it's hard for me to see how a category consisting entirely of redirects (okay, and
Éire) falls into the acceptable situations described at
Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, or how such a category is particularly helpful.
List of countries by native names seems to serve the same purpose in a much better way.
Propaniac (
talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
ξxplicit 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
weak keep and clean up. MOS, as of today, says: "Most disambiguation pages do not need to be placed into any categories other than those generated by the template. If such cases do arise (for example, specific categories of personal names that do not have corresponding template parameters), then the additional categories should be placed after the template.". Here we have a case where (a) each major endonym has a clear primary meaning, that of being an endonym for a geographical or ethnic entity, thus establishing a "common denominator" for a category (b) even when they develop into proper articles, each endonym has a trail of secondary meanings: there are hundreds of things named after countries. I think that this is enough to keep the category afloat. Occuli has already noted that the category is underpopulated with legitimate entries and, on the contraries, contains redirects that, imo, should not be there. So there are two options: either keep, fill up and clean up (who, me?!) or delete and forget.
East of Borschov (
talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Support deletion. Although this could be expanded of course and could become a massive category, per Occuli's reasoning I don't think we should be categorizing based this aspect of the name—it's too much like categorization of things based on their name rather than their common characteristics, which is what categories are generally supposed to do.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Latino civil rights activists
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:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights. I make the following observations: (1) There is a consensus that this needs to be renamed. (2) There is a consensus to use "for" rather than "of". (3) There is no consensus in this discussion what comes after "for" and before "civil rights". Therefore, I am defaulting to "Hispanic and Latino American" for the reasons given by Mayumashu—"Hispanic and Latino American" is the standard generic term in WP for this concept. Adding "... in the United States" would be redundant to "American".Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I do not recognize a speedy criterion here; in any event, "Activists for Latino civil rights" would make better sense.-
choster (
talk) 06:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Object These suggestions don't make sense gramatically. Also, a discussion of how all Hispanic or Latino categories need to be designated should be done. --
evrik(
talk) 14:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Make new comments below this line.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to "Activists for Latino civil rights" in this case as less ambiguous. Agree that a broader discussion on naming conventions for "Latino" categories would be useful.
Gonzonoir (
talk) 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Question -- Is Latino the ethnicity of the activists or of those who need the civil rights? The answer will determine what the correct target is. It certainly needs to be renamed somehow.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:50, 30 May 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:British ice hockey competitions
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 would have 'tournaments' a sub-cat of 'competitions' as the former are held at one setting and occur in a shorter duration, so I can t support this rename either. Catting here is about comprising North American and European English use of the terms competition, tournament, league, etc. but it can be done. 'by competition' really needs to be the supra cat
Mayumashu (
talk) 16:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Although I agree that competitions should be the supra cat of tournaments,
Category:Tournaments and
Category:Sports tournaments have been redirects to
Category:Competitions and
Category:Sports competitions respectively for a long time, so the terms seem to be treated equally on Wikipedia. Hence, my nomination is legit as per the current standard, and a change to this should maybe be taken to a full CfD.
lil2mas (
talk) 19:49, 15 May 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:Canadian football history
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. The proposal makes sense; the sole opposition appears to be based on either a misunderstanding or personal animosity.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, well, the category creator has responded to previous efforts by me to address some issues with his categorization with a string of personal attacks on GOF's talk page, which I've chosen to ignore. I'm not surprised he's objecting here, although I agree it's not at all clear why: other than he has decided I do not have the right to in any way edit
his work.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:35, 25 May 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.