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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Basically includes a few fauna and flora categories. No need to lump them into one category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:59, 11 November 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:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W
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:Merge to the by state category. By state is the established breakout in the US. There is nothing in the category introduction that would indicate why 109 West is notable for this activity. If kept, rename to
Category:Volcanic fields of the United States west of 109°W. Note that in effect this covers all of the US since if you continue west from 109W, you reach it from the east.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:51, 11 November 201--
Chris.urs-o (
talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)0 (UTC)reply
Note that the 109 line runs through extreme western Colorado and New Mexico as I understand it. Both of these are in the Western United States so renaming would include more area. Don't know if this is an issue or not.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Western United States is ok, the volcanism on eastern USA is from the
Pangaea break up and older. The
Davis Mountains are in Texas, the
Basin and Range Province includes Texas and Mexico, and I thought that I got whole Colorado with 109°W (my mistake). Normaly State lines and rivers flow through geologic faults and boundaries. So I think the compromise is ok. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk) 08:17, 22 November 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:City Creek Center
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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Contains only logos related to the
City Creek Center shopping mall development in Salt Lake City.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as the category now only contains the eponymous article. I will take exception though if the category has been emptied out of order. __
meco (
talk) 08:41, 19 November 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.
Government-owned companies
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 think a common, generic, descriptive term should be applied to all categories even though some countries may have English names that differ from this. In the case which you bring up, the use of the term state will become confusing if applied as you suggest if other countries, such as Brazil and the US which which have "states" as subordinate entities below the federal government, are classified also per that subordinate level. __
meco (
talk) 08:38, 19 November 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:Quasi-public entities in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I understand the need for a category which covers companies that are partly controlled by the government, however, this name doesn't sit well with me. And as this is a type of category that would be relevant for many countries I think a name that could travel around such a structure needs a little thinking about.
meco (
talk) 18:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I believe that in the U.S. this is the most commonly used term for these; it's certainly not a WP-created neologism. "Quasi-public entity" and "quasi-public entities" both get thousands of hits on google.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment --If Quasi-public is the US term we should Keep it for US entities, even if it is not the term used elsewhere. This should not mean that that we must rename similar categories for other countries that use other terminology.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:53, 14 November 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:Battery electric vehicle components
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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Some of the contents of this category do not match the title and those that do are best served by an article. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)reply
keep and cleanup. A category is a perfectly fine way of organizing this material for navigation, the purpose of categories, regardless of any article that anyone may choose to write.
Hmains (
talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Some months ago, we had an editor who created vast number of categories for "green" energy, transport, etc. Is this another of his SPAM categories? I observe that some one has removed
wire from this category (and rightly). Many of the items listed here can be components of a wide range of electrical equipemnt, so why delect out those needed for battery operated vehicles? If kept, irrlevant and mundane items should be removed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as nominated. At least half of the articles are for components used in a wide range of applications, and the few survivors could be moved into the parent category.
Mangoe (
talk) 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak keepThis is a tough one for me. Yes, I think it has all the hallmarks of a nonsensical Mac/Nopetro green energy OC violation. Yes, much of the category contents do not belong here, as they are not battery electric vehicle components. And when you take those away, there's not a whole lot left. However, the nominated category seems to be a reasonable sub-cat of
Category:Vehicle parts and
Category:Battery electric vehicles, and as such, permitted under
WP:OC. But as Peter says, needs clean up.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Removed my weak keep -- the deletion supporters make compelling cases.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Examination of
Category:Vehicle parts shows that it is highly problematic, with many of the articles tagged for notability issues and others not specifically relevant to vehicles.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not defining and if we add this category for
battery pack, we also need to add that to
Category:Flashlights. These components are for the most part used in other places and it is not generally defining there either. For the really unique components, they are already spelled out in the various articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:53, 19 November 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.
2010 by US state
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete both. Possible categories, but the only member in either category (
2010 World Series) doesn't belong in either, meaning the categories should be empty. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Why not just depopulate and tag as {{db-c1}}? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 12:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't want to be accused of depopulating a category before requesting deletion; I've removed one or two articles from a category before, but this time there was only one. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm sure this is a viable hierarchy, however, when it is to be created, this should be done in a more emphatic manner which shows some dedication to the task, possibly involving the concerned WikiProjects. I think the input of the creator of these categories could be useful as well. __
meco (
talk) 18:13, 11 November 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:R&B and soul musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 21:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 1) R&B (genre), 2) soul (genre), 3) musicians (occupation), 4) Pennsylvania (state), 5) Philadelphia (city).
Overcategorization, or, more accurately, complete overkill. There's need to narrow down categories this much. —
ξxplicit 05:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge as overcategorization. This would have to be done manually to separate the R&B and soul people, no?
Hekerui (
talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, and I'll take care of that should the nomination succeed. —
ξxplicit 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Definite overkill. That said, there might be some utility to a category specifically for
Philadelphia soul musicians, but that's a genre which includes some musicians who aren't from Philadelphia and excludes some who are, so it's not identical to this set as defined here.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:00, 14 November 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:Derivatives
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 00:34, 20 November 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.
Nuclear power stations in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Parent category is not overly populated. While there are 4 NRC regions, are they of navigational importance for the average reader? Navigation would be better served by keeping all of these in one category. Note that one region covers about 70% of the area of the US. If we need to split the parent later, we can do so by state. Also note that the other subcategories are not split out by region.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge as proposed. A good idea to remove clasification by NRC region. But generally all US Power Stations should be classified by state which would be a subcategory of “Energy facilities in State X”. At the moment Hydro plants are; plus Coal stations and Wind farms for some states only. For the other states they are also directly listed under "Energy facilities etc.
Hugo999 (
talk) 10:34, 20 November 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:Bolling 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. As the creator of this category, I feel that the proposed renaming does not change the category's scope and is consistent with similar categories for
First Families of Virginia, as the nominator states above. Location, thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! --
Caponer (
talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the principle. This will avoid mis-population by others with the surname, but no close relationship.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:56, 14 November 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:Germany international rugby union players from Zimbabwe
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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We definitely don't want to be sort international players by country of origin.
TM 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete overcategorization, but there are in all 9 subcategories of that type, they could have been nominated alongside this one.
Hekerui (
talk) 21:57, 15 November 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:Motorways and highways of Pakistan
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To conform to motorway categories in other countries. "Highways" in Pakistan are not limited access-roads and are best categorised at
Category:Roads in Pakistan.
Mhockey (
talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support since there are no objections.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:54, 23 November 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:Electors
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose that All of these are
Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, & the little tree should be rearranged to put that as the head cat. It is far clearer. The main article should be renamed too imo, but anyway extra clarity is needed in a category name. Although all were "princes" in the international law sense, some were kings, others archbishops and so on, so "prince" is best avoided.
Johnbod (
talk) 10:09, 18 November 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:George Washington slept here
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We definitely do not want to start categorizing places by notable people who slept there, or ate there, or peed there, or whatever. It's typically an interesting factoid about a place, but is not generally defining for the places. And you know, many notable people have slept in an awful lot of different places. Can you imagine the category clutter on certain ritzy hotels!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. George Washington is a unique character in American history and where he slept is also a unique cultural reference. Having a list of places where he slept would be valuable.
Whoisjohngalt (
talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
It may be true that having a list of places he slept would be valuable, but if so shouldn't this be accomplished via a list article?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Such lists exist for very many people throughout the world and throughout history. Most places were a monarch has spent the night will have this prominently chronicled and presented to later guests and their written histories. __
meco (
talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't even think a list would have any value. Wikipedia is not a directory for trivia like that.
Hekerui (
talk) 12:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- but no objection to listifying. The equivalent in England, would be "Queen Elizabeth slept here" which is supposed to apply to many manions of the period. Interesting but NN.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- listify by all means
Johnbod (
talk) 10:14, 18 November 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.
Gender-specific basketball teams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. —
ξxplicit 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:48, 19 November 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.
Savannah State
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This school does call its female athletes Lady Tigers. Examples
here and
here.
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:48, 19 November 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:Signers of Historical Documents
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Duplicate categories. Suggest merging to older and correctly capitalized one. I also believe "signatories" is a little more formal and proper than "signers".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. __
meco (
talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom as redundant category.
Hekerui (
talk) 09:24, 13 November 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:Student ghettos
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 is arbitrary and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm a long term resident of one of the areas placed in the category (which is how I came across it at the foot of the page I was reading). I don't consider the area a "student ghetto" and find the association pretty obnoxious. Having categories allowing people to haphazardly claim an area is a "ghetto" just isn't clever.
Sharkeven (
talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Student quarters. This shouldn't close as no consensus again, regardless of the comments. We can't let an awful name like that stand.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 07:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Student quarters. Neither name is quite right for the UK but 'quarters' is a great improvement over 'ghettos'.
Occuli (
talk) 23:51, 11 November 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.
Arkansas Razorbacks
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per the
Furman and Ole Miss nominations from yesterday, Arkansas no longer seems to use the name "Ladybacks" for the women's teams. Examples are
here and
here.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:47, 19 November 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:delete. —
ξxplicit 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Basically includes a few fauna and flora categories. No need to lump them into one category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:59, 11 November 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:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W
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:Merge to the by state category. By state is the established breakout in the US. There is nothing in the category introduction that would indicate why 109 West is notable for this activity. If kept, rename to
Category:Volcanic fields of the United States west of 109°W. Note that in effect this covers all of the US since if you continue west from 109W, you reach it from the east.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:51, 11 November 201--
Chris.urs-o (
talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)0 (UTC)reply
Note that the 109 line runs through extreme western Colorado and New Mexico as I understand it. Both of these are in the Western United States so renaming would include more area. Don't know if this is an issue or not.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Western United States is ok, the volcanism on eastern USA is from the
Pangaea break up and older. The
Davis Mountains are in Texas, the
Basin and Range Province includes Texas and Mexico, and I thought that I got whole Colorado with 109°W (my mistake). Normaly State lines and rivers flow through geologic faults and boundaries. So I think the compromise is ok. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk) 08:17, 22 November 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:City Creek Center
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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Contains only logos related to the
City Creek Center shopping mall development in Salt Lake City.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as the category now only contains the eponymous article. I will take exception though if the category has been emptied out of order. __
meco (
talk) 08:41, 19 November 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.
Government-owned companies
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 think a common, generic, descriptive term should be applied to all categories even though some countries may have English names that differ from this. In the case which you bring up, the use of the term state will become confusing if applied as you suggest if other countries, such as Brazil and the US which which have "states" as subordinate entities below the federal government, are classified also per that subordinate level. __
meco (
talk) 08:38, 19 November 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:Quasi-public entities in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I understand the need for a category which covers companies that are partly controlled by the government, however, this name doesn't sit well with me. And as this is a type of category that would be relevant for many countries I think a name that could travel around such a structure needs a little thinking about.
meco (
talk) 18:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I believe that in the U.S. this is the most commonly used term for these; it's certainly not a WP-created neologism. "Quasi-public entity" and "quasi-public entities" both get thousands of hits on google.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment --If Quasi-public is the US term we should Keep it for US entities, even if it is not the term used elsewhere. This should not mean that that we must rename similar categories for other countries that use other terminology.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:53, 14 November 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:Battery electric vehicle components
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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Some of the contents of this category do not match the title and those that do are best served by an article. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)reply
keep and cleanup. A category is a perfectly fine way of organizing this material for navigation, the purpose of categories, regardless of any article that anyone may choose to write.
Hmains (
talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Some months ago, we had an editor who created vast number of categories for "green" energy, transport, etc. Is this another of his SPAM categories? I observe that some one has removed
wire from this category (and rightly). Many of the items listed here can be components of a wide range of electrical equipemnt, so why delect out those needed for battery operated vehicles? If kept, irrlevant and mundane items should be removed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dana boomer (
talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as nominated. At least half of the articles are for components used in a wide range of applications, and the few survivors could be moved into the parent category.
Mangoe (
talk) 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak keepThis is a tough one for me. Yes, I think it has all the hallmarks of a nonsensical Mac/Nopetro green energy OC violation. Yes, much of the category contents do not belong here, as they are not battery electric vehicle components. And when you take those away, there's not a whole lot left. However, the nominated category seems to be a reasonable sub-cat of
Category:Vehicle parts and
Category:Battery electric vehicles, and as such, permitted under
WP:OC. But as Peter says, needs clean up.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Removed my weak keep -- the deletion supporters make compelling cases.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Examination of
Category:Vehicle parts shows that it is highly problematic, with many of the articles tagged for notability issues and others not specifically relevant to vehicles.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not defining and if we add this category for
battery pack, we also need to add that to
Category:Flashlights. These components are for the most part used in other places and it is not generally defining there either. For the really unique components, they are already spelled out in the various articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:53, 19 November 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.
2010 by US state
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete both. Possible categories, but the only member in either category (
2010 World Series) doesn't belong in either, meaning the categories should be empty. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Why not just depopulate and tag as {{db-c1}}? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 12:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't want to be accused of depopulating a category before requesting deletion; I've removed one or two articles from a category before, but this time there was only one. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm sure this is a viable hierarchy, however, when it is to be created, this should be done in a more emphatic manner which shows some dedication to the task, possibly involving the concerned WikiProjects. I think the input of the creator of these categories could be useful as well. __
meco (
talk) 18:13, 11 November 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:R&B and soul musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 21:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 1) R&B (genre), 2) soul (genre), 3) musicians (occupation), 4) Pennsylvania (state), 5) Philadelphia (city).
Overcategorization, or, more accurately, complete overkill. There's need to narrow down categories this much. —
ξxplicit 05:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge as overcategorization. This would have to be done manually to separate the R&B and soul people, no?
Hekerui (
talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, and I'll take care of that should the nomination succeed. —
ξxplicit 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Definite overkill. That said, there might be some utility to a category specifically for
Philadelphia soul musicians, but that's a genre which includes some musicians who aren't from Philadelphia and excludes some who are, so it's not identical to this set as defined here.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:00, 14 November 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:Derivatives
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 00:34, 20 November 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.
Nuclear power stations in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Parent category is not overly populated. While there are 4 NRC regions, are they of navigational importance for the average reader? Navigation would be better served by keeping all of these in one category. Note that one region covers about 70% of the area of the US. If we need to split the parent later, we can do so by state. Also note that the other subcategories are not split out by region.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge as proposed. A good idea to remove clasification by NRC region. But generally all US Power Stations should be classified by state which would be a subcategory of “Energy facilities in State X”. At the moment Hydro plants are; plus Coal stations and Wind farms for some states only. For the other states they are also directly listed under "Energy facilities etc.
Hugo999 (
talk) 10:34, 20 November 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:Bolling 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. As the creator of this category, I feel that the proposed renaming does not change the category's scope and is consistent with similar categories for
First Families of Virginia, as the nominator states above. Location, thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! --
Caponer (
talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support the principle. This will avoid mis-population by others with the surname, but no close relationship.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:56, 14 November 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:Germany international rugby union players from Zimbabwe
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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We definitely don't want to be sort international players by country of origin.
TM 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete overcategorization, but there are in all 9 subcategories of that type, they could have been nominated alongside this one.
Hekerui (
talk) 21:57, 15 November 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:Motorways and highways of Pakistan
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To conform to motorway categories in other countries. "Highways" in Pakistan are not limited access-roads and are best categorised at
Category:Roads in Pakistan.
Mhockey (
talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support since there are no objections.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:54, 23 November 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:Electors
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose that All of these are
Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, & the little tree should be rearranged to put that as the head cat. It is far clearer. The main article should be renamed too imo, but anyway extra clarity is needed in a category name. Although all were "princes" in the international law sense, some were kings, others archbishops and so on, so "prince" is best avoided.
Johnbod (
talk) 10:09, 18 November 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:George Washington slept here
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We definitely do not want to start categorizing places by notable people who slept there, or ate there, or peed there, or whatever. It's typically an interesting factoid about a place, but is not generally defining for the places. And you know, many notable people have slept in an awful lot of different places. Can you imagine the category clutter on certain ritzy hotels!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. George Washington is a unique character in American history and where he slept is also a unique cultural reference. Having a list of places where he slept would be valuable.
Whoisjohngalt (
talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
It may be true that having a list of places he slept would be valuable, but if so shouldn't this be accomplished via a list article?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Such lists exist for very many people throughout the world and throughout history. Most places were a monarch has spent the night will have this prominently chronicled and presented to later guests and their written histories. __
meco (
talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't even think a list would have any value. Wikipedia is not a directory for trivia like that.
Hekerui (
talk) 12:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- but no objection to listifying. The equivalent in England, would be "Queen Elizabeth slept here" which is supposed to apply to many manions of the period. Interesting but NN.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- listify by all means
Johnbod (
talk) 10:14, 18 November 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.
Gender-specific basketball teams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. —
ξxplicit 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:48, 19 November 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.
Savannah State
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This school does call its female athletes Lady Tigers. Examples
here and
here.
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:48, 19 November 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:Signers of Historical Documents
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Duplicate categories. Suggest merging to older and correctly capitalized one. I also believe "signatories" is a little more formal and proper than "signers".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. __
meco (
talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom as redundant category.
Hekerui (
talk) 09:24, 13 November 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:Student ghettos
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 is arbitrary and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm a long term resident of one of the areas placed in the category (which is how I came across it at the foot of the page I was reading). I don't consider the area a "student ghetto" and find the association pretty obnoxious. Having categories allowing people to haphazardly claim an area is a "ghetto" just isn't clever.
Sharkeven (
talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Student quarters. This shouldn't close as no consensus again, regardless of the comments. We can't let an awful name like that stand.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 07:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Student quarters. Neither name is quite right for the UK but 'quarters' is a great improvement over 'ghettos'.
Occuli (
talk) 23:51, 11 November 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.
Arkansas Razorbacks
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per the
Furman and Ole Miss nominations from yesterday, Arkansas no longer seems to use the name "Ladybacks" for the women's teams. Examples are
here and
here.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:47, 19 November 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.