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.
Kbdank71 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the name of the main article. Note that this category was populated by an out of process move. No sense in undoing that, just move this to the correct name.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I thought it was standard practice to leave "Corp.", "LLC", "Inc.", etc. out of titles? (In which case the article should also be renamed.) -
The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Please research the name. This is the second company to use a form of
Caesars Entertainment as their name running gaming out of Vegas. The article is correctly named for disambiguation based on the guidelines that allow adding items like 'Corp.' when needed for disambiguation. Given that the two corporations are close in time and that they held several of the same properties, different names need to be used. The name proposed here is what the local rag is using for the new corporation and appears to be their real name. Oh and don't forget that these are not the only corporations to use this name. Finally, it was a mess to clear up the articles after someone moved the corporation to the undisambiguated name.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I just checked the name again on the company web site which still has a few problems. They appear to be using Caesars Entertainment Corporation which if correct would say that the page and the category should use that form.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I did research it, but the one that purposed the merger failed to realize that the
Caesars Entertainment, Inc did not use the Category page
Caesars Entertainment and that
Caesars Entertainment Corporation (formerly Harrah's Entertainment) is a successor to
Caesars Entertainment, Inc, Since Harrah's bought Caesars in 2005 and renamed the company to focus on the brand Caesars. Also even though Harrah's said it was switching to Corp. I have found pages on the website that show it as Inc.[1] & [2]B64 (
talk) 23:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Why not try
this page. Google results for the old company name are not a help in determining the name of the current corporation.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Why don't we use the
press release which lists it as Caesars Entertainment Corporation as the valid source. As I said the first source was the local rag which apparently got this wrong. When editors start moving articles and categories around as soon as an announcement is made it usually causes problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:14, 7 December 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:Italian-language operettas
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.
Kbdank71 17:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete and upmerge to
Category:Italian-language operas and
Category:Operettas. Overcategorization. We already have a well-populated (482)
Category:Italian-language operas. Operetta, despite being an Italian word, is a rare genre of opera in Italian and there is only one article in this cat. If every genre of opera was subdivided by language we would have several hundred extra cats, very few of them with significant populations. Kleinzach 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment – can the nom not gather together these 'foo-language operattas' into a single nom? Is the eventual nom going to be an upmerge of all 'foo-language operattas' into
Category:Operettas and 'foo-language operas' or is it more complicated?
Occuli (
talk) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Good question. I did it pragmatically, cat by cat, because at least one of the (unnominated) items in the set looked independently viable. But perhaps you are right and it would be easier to take them all together? In that case, how could we group them? How is that done? --Kleinzach 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. The Cfds in question are all on this page. --Kleinzach 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, if an operetta in English (or German) is to get a subcat, it sounds as if 'Operettas by language' is viable. It would be easier to insist that
Category:Operettas should not be subcatted at all.
Occuli (
talk) 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Category:English-language operettas ( (39 articles) was specially created for a sizable and distinct sub-genre of works created in Britain and north America. We couldn't call them 'English operettas' (omitting the Americans), nor could we call it 'Broadway operettas' (omitting the London ones etc) so it was called 'English-language'. It was a one-off, unintended to launch a series of 'foo-language operettas'. Unfortunately other editors, unfamiliar with the subject, made the assumption that if there were 'English-language operettas', then there had to be Italian, Russian, French etc. (I opted to nominate these cats one by one considering this, and also out of a general desire to keep a complex subject as simple as possible) --Kleinzach 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Matches all other categories in
Category:Operettas. There is a sizeable and distinct group of operettas in languages other than English. Any category that has been subcategorized in one language should be subcategorized by all of the languages in the category. This is standard for Wikipedia, and logical and most useful for the reader.
Softlavender (
talk) 03:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per Softlavender
Johnbod (
talk) 10:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per Softlavender. We have a categorization scheme, it works, I see no reason to mess it up.
Roscelese (
talk) 17:34, 9 December 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:Gießen
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 Gießen => Giessen, and do not rename the other direction. This was not an easy call. Something needs to change—either the University of Giessen categories or the city of Gießen categories. And there's no one who supports having the categories out of step with each other. A slight majority of commenters here and in the speedy nomination favor the -ss- approach, and the university name makes it clear that the rename is plausible. So I'm going with that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Question: Should the name of categories or articles on English Wikipedia include characters (other than accents) that do not exist in English grammar?
Davshul (
talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Answer: According to Wikipedia's naming policy, there is no problem with it.
ß is simply a Latin alphabet ligature.
Jared Preston (
talk) 19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Request Can you please provide a reference to Wikipedia's naming policy regarding the "ß". I could not trace it.
Davshul (
talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. Well, there is
this, but it's not an official guideline, just the one often referred to by WikiProject Germany participants. Apart from that I too can find nothing about this issue. Does anyone know where we can find this "naming policy" that has been referred to?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think that is on point. What I get from that is basically we should try to follow the most common English-language usage, unless there really aren't any to follow. I find it hard to believe that "Gießen" is preferred over "Giessen" in English-language usages?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, "Gießen" isn't going to be written with ß in many English texts since most English keyboards don't have the letter. Gießen doesn't have a typically English name either, like München → Munich. Gießen is Gießen, just like Düsseldorf is Düsseldorf and Großräschen is Großräschen.
Jared Preston (
talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That's an explanation for the usage, but isn't what
this is saying is use "Giessen" if it is most commonly used in English-language sources? It doesn't say anything about analysing why the sources choose the usage they choose.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory.
76.66.203.138 (
talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory.
76.66.203.138 (
talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory.
76.66.203.138 (
talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The original Speedy nomination was to rename three sub-categories in the Gießen category tree, by replacing the "ss" with "ß". This would have been consistent with the parent category
Category:Gießen. However, the letter ß is a ligature typically used in the German alphabet in place of a double "s", but is not used in English and is probably unknown to the many (if not a majority) of those using English Wikipedia. Accordingly, it is proposed that the parent category (and a subcategory using the ß ligature) be renamed. Giessen appears to be the accepted spelling of the city in English.
Davshul (
talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I have added to the list a third category which includes the word Gießen.
Davshul (
talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think if I had my way I would say we would not use the ß in the English Wikipedia in articles or categories, but I am a little bit concerned here that if we only rename the categories will be creating a difference between what the articles use (
Gießen, etc.) and what the category structure uses.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
If and when the change of name is agreed the articles' names can easily be moved and the articles modified slightly to account for the new article name. The article
University of Gießen was only recently moved from
University of Giessen, just before the category nomination, without any discussion.
Davshul (
talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, and replace any occurrences of ß with ss in any names (article or category). An umlaut is OK but not a ß (in English).
Occuli (
talk) 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and rationale brought up at Speedy for "Giessen" over eszett.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose As much as I hate to have special characters in article titles, the title
Gießen is the proper spelling with the ligature included and we should match that throughout the category structure to match the article title. Cutting and pasting the article title to a corresponding category name is simple enough to do.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I've restored the status quo ante on the
University of Giessen article as such a change should be discussed first and universities named after cities & towns often do wind up using different versions of the name from their city/town in the name they use in English -
Peking University is one of the best known. I'm not sure if we've ever really settled the use of ß in article titles - a quick glance suggests that the forum it comes up in tends to predetermine the outcome of any discussion.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Alansohn. If you want to propose moving the article, the place for that is on the article's talk page. Until then, the category name should match the title of its main article.
Jafeluv (
talk) 04:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The name of the city is Gießen. You could argue that I was wrong with saying "University of Gießen" when somehow that is spelled with double-S, but under no circumstances can it be argued that the city is called "Giessen". This has also been thrashed out at length at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany.
Jared Preston (
talk) 22:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The point is not really what the "actual" name of the place is, but what is the name of the place most commonly used in English-language sources.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nominator. The letter ß is not normally used in English, and per
WP:COMMONNAME we use the common English-language name. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 23:27, 15 December 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:Downtown Core
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.
No, but categories have more problems with ambiguous names. But it can be renamed after this if we decide it is needed and then we have two choices for the name.
WP:RM is backlogged about 40 days, so a nomination there will take us into next year.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support highly ambiguous. Prefer "Downtown Core (Singapore)". I would also suggest renaming the article, as it will not be primary usage, but only local usage. "downtown core" should just redirect to the downtown article.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 04:51, 1 December 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:Non-free audio samples
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:Wikipedia non-free audio samples per the parent categories. Consistency is not present in these category names, so I took the simplest change possible. I recommend a much broader nomination to settle the differences.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The "Wikipedia" is needed to clearly identify this as a high-level project category which should not contain any mainspace content pages. The top-level parent category for sounds is
Category:Wikipedia audio files, so "audio samples" should be changed to "audio files" for consistency unless there is some copyright-related reason to use "samples". -- Black Falcon(
talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Seems a trivial change and consistancy isn't there for Wikipedia quantifier. The use of Wikipedia was questioned
way back in titles like this and, IMO a completely flawed logic of
naming conventions (the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories) was applied. How is is confusing. Non-free audio can never be a content category. This change is also not consistent with
Category:Non-free logos for example.
Rambo's Revenge(talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
You are correct that consistency isn't there (yet), but it never will be attained if a present lack of consistency is used as a counter-argument to renaming. Also, considering that the parent category of this page is
Wikipedia non-free sounds, whose parent category is
Wikipedia audio files, whose parent category is
Wikipedia media files ... I think a convention exists in this particular case.
The change itself may be relatively minor but, then again, performing the change is also a minor/trivial matter. In addition, while the logic behind
the convention—"categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories"—may or may not be flawed (personally, I do not think that it is), it does currently have consensus. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I hate meaningless disputes like this but note that
Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds was originally at
Category:Non-free sounds. Can you point me to a rationale for that move? I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia quantifier just stemmed from "Wikipedia maintenance" which obviously couldn't be named "Maintenance". One of the other reasons I'm objecting is because "Wikipedia non-free audio" sounds possessive like the non-free audio belongs to Wikipedia. Personally I think the current is the best option unless you make a Maintenance namespace.
Rambo's Revenge(talk) 18:52, 18 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) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Renameper nom to
Category:Wikipedia files with non-free audio samples per Uzma Gamal below. The files are Wikipedia's, but the audio samples contained therein are not makes a lot of sense. (although I do like the idea of a maintenance namespace...) --
Kbdank71 14:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - To Wikipedia or not to Wikipedia:
List of Categories having non-free and/or not Wikipedia
Categories having both non-free and Wikipedia in their name
Rename to
Category:Wikipedia files with non-free audio samples. - I looked over all categories having non-free and/or not Wikipedia per my above list post. The proposed change is consistent with Categories having both non-free and Wikipedia in their name. The files are Wikipedia's, but the audio samples contained therein are not. The Wikipedia qualifier is not for the benefit of you and me, who are in the know. The Wikipedia quantifier is needed to alert non-hip Wikipedians (e.g., newbies) to the fact that the category is an administration category and not an article category. Plus, the use of the Wikipedia quantifier is consistent with both parent categories: Wikipedia audio files | Wikipedia non-free content. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 23:40, 19 December 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:Wikipedia non-free sounds
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.
Kbdank71 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Correct my if I'm wrong, but in theory all of our free sounds should be on commons, so it should be implied that any such content on Wikipedia is non-free without needing to identify it as such, at least in the title.
VegaDark (
talk) 07:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
As far as I know, all of our free audio files are on the Commons. However,
featured sounds (even though the actual files are on the Commons) are still categorized on Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah, yes, forgot about that. Any particular reason we do that? In any case, your proposal seems reasonable.
VegaDark (
talk) 03:43, 13 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) 16:54, 30 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:Arabian people of Persian descent
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; feel free to start a discussion that proposes deletion.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, to match head article. It is also clear from contents of the category and its sub-categories that it relates to Arab people generally, not just Arabian people (those pertaining to the Arabian peninsula).
JackJud (
talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Possibly delete We do have an article on
Iranian Arabs but if I follow it correctly it's actually about Arabs who happen to live in Iran, making the category perhaps "Iranian people of Arabic descent". I also note that judging from some of the entries there is confusion about exactly who ought be in this category.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Also, this category does not seem to be talking about Iranian Arabs, but rather the opposite i.e. Arabs who are of Persian/Iranian descent. Given the historical link between Arabia and Persia, I'd say there was significant migration from Persia to the former.
Mar4d (
talk) 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
If you look at the way we define
Arab, my sense is that it and
Persian are mutually exclusive. That article speaks of Arabs who live in Iran but it consistently otherwise excludes the Farsi-speaking Persians/Iranians. If we mean "Arabian" to be "resident of Arabia" then I think all the subcategories ought to be pushed up into
Category:People of Iranian descent. At least some of the members do appear to be Arabs who lived in Persia, e.g.
Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani. On the other hand we have someone like
Bashar ibn Burd who is clearly a Persian living in (to stretch a border- Baghdad?) Arabia. I'm vaguely OK with substituting "Iran" for "Persia" but the categorization in the whole is ambiguous.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:43, 1 December 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:University of Alaska alumni
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, tag with cat diffuse.
Kbdank71 15:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
For whatever reason, I was limited from posting a longer explanation. Now that I think about it, this category can be useful as a catch-all. However, it's mostly being used by "lazy" editors for persons who graduated from the University of Alaska Fairbanks pre-1975, before the creation of the University of Alaska Anchorage and University of Alaska Juneau (now
Southeast), when the same institution was known as (and the diplomas read) the "University of Alaska." The page "University of Alaska" redirects to
University of Alaska System, an adminstrative bureacracy which (to the very best of my knowledge) awards no diplomas. They carry out the administration of statewide public higher education as "ordained" under Sections 2 and 3, Article 7 of the
Alaska Constitution.
Not only is UAS not covered by a separate category, but neither is Prince William Sound Community College in
Valdez, which is an actual community college and not a branch campus of one of the three main campuses, and enjoys a degree of autonomy as a result. Some graduates could also conceivably not fit in a specific campus category, despite attending those campuses. To keep from you having to take all day to read this, some housekeeping would probably work, though some of it borders on doing other people's jobs for them.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 13:57, 30 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:Alaska State Senators
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. It's unfortunate when a category intersects two sets of common categories that have different naming conventions. Category:Alaska State Senators does match the other US state senator categories, even though it doesn't match the other Alaska officials categories. Sometimes it's impossible to have consistency with all of the parent/sibling categories (unless you want to nominate the Alaska categories for renaming, that is).
Kbdank71 15:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, unless we're going to change all of the subcategories of
Category:State senators of the United States. "FOO State Senators" is the current standard format for each of the 50 categories. That said, I may not be averse to changing all of them, but it would obviously require a broader nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per Good Ol’factory, "Foo State Senators" is current convention, and AFAIK it also fits
WP:COMMONNAME -- I am not an American, but usage I am familiar with is that "X was a Foo Sate Senator", not "X was a Member of the Alaska Senate". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
For whatever reason, I was limited from posting a longer explanation. The pages
Alaska State Senate and
Category:Alaska State Senators were created at around the same time in late 2004. My best guess is that someone created a bunch of pages following an election, and did not realize that the institution of a Senate in Alaska actually predates statehood (and is close to celebrating its 100th anniversary, in fact). Only in the past year or two have articles begun to be written about territorial politicians to any great degree, and the need to distinguish between territorial and state legislatures (and other offices) has become apparent.
In Alaska, we have a common expression: "We don't care how they do it
Outside." I've never even noticed how any other state may have their pages organized. I just know that with the pages pertaining to Alaska, we have an apparent anachronism, if you look at it in the context of the following categories:
The related non-category pages all follow this same convention as well. This category alone stands out like a sore thumb when placed into this context. Like I said, I haven't paid one bit of attention to how it's done with any other state. I perhaps had a notion previously that
Category:Members of the Alaska Territorial Legislature may have helped the problem , but it's being used more as a supplemental category, rather than to segregate territorial from state officeholders. Territorial senators are apt to be categorized as equals to state senators, and
Category:Presidents of the Alaska Senate implies that there is no distinction, and that category page includes at least one territorial senate president.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 07:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename (changed from above). Well—this extended explanation convinced me. I agree that it's a good idea if it includes members of the Senate from the territorial period.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I made a quick search on other states' category pages and realized I may have exposed a peculiarity about Alaska. Most United States can't claim as long-lasting or significant pre-statehood history under United States occupation or rule as Alaska can. It was only in 2005 that the state of Alaska outdistanced the territory in age. It will take until 2050 for Alaska to outdistance the time spent from purchase to statehood. In the discussion to create
Category:Members of the Alaska Territorial Legislature about 11 months ago, I believe someone other than myself mentioned that "Alaska State Senators" sounded out of context given that there was also a territorial legislature. I certainly didn't realize that this was a convention used for every state, and I would have to say that applied to other posters as well.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 08:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Every entry in the parent
Category:State senators of the United States is in the form of "Foo State Senators", regardless of the presence of the word "State" in the article title. The word "State" provides greater clarity to avoid confusion with members of the
United States Senate representing the state. Unless we make the change for all U.S. states and territories there appears to be no argument that Alaska should not follow a well-established standard.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
<<<The word "State" provides greater clarity to avoid confusion with members of the
United States Senate representing the state.>>> This will partially rehash and hope to further clarify what I've already written. I was actually unaware of that prior to this proposal. My motivation for this goes back to a discussion held nearly a year ago regarding creating category pages for territorial legislatures. The consensus was that "State Senators" sounds awkward in the cases of those states which had a pre-statehood legislature or legislatures with significant or notable history, and Alaska is certainly one of those states. The thought of that discussion has been on the back burner ever since. I suppose that this could very well head down the path of openly questioning the naming convention. I'm not so sure I have the time or inclination to shepherd such an effort.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. There's no reason to treat Alaska differently than other states, and the current name is the most concise and clear. The term "member", furthermore, is typically applied to legislators in the lower house of a legislature. Alaska's pre-statehood territorial legislature is not unique, even if it existed longer than other territorial governments, and it's certainly not relevant to whether a category expressly reserved for state legislators should be renamed. If state and territorial officials aren't being kept separate at present, that should be fixed. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:French-language operettas
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.
Kbdank71 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
This cat was created on 17 October. (Prior to that the articles were in
Category:French-language operas.) Operetta is a genre of opera, both as published generally, and as organized on WP.
For French opera, we have a number of specific, creator-defined genre cats (many of them associated with Offenbach's designations, see here). In the case of
Category:French-language operettas it's not clear what is included in the cat and what isn't. Are early forms in, or only later works (
Hahn/
Messager etc)? Is a 'French-language operetta' equivalent to an opérette or applied more widely?
Oppose unless someone is willing to go into
operetta and remove all references to
Jacques Offenbach. We at present more or less define French operetta according to his works, so I have a hard time understanding why Orpheus in the Underworld for instance is by exclusion being claimed not to be an operetta.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Orpheus in the Underworld is an
opéra bouffe or
opéra féerie in its revised version. (These are early forms of operetta by one definition.) But that's hardly relevant. The problem here is overcategorization. --Kleinzach 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Since we identify
Opéra bouffe as "a genre of late 19th-century French operetta", why shouldn't these works be categorized as operettas?
Mangoe (
talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Category:Operettas and by extension
Category:French-language operettas currently subsumes all of the French subtypes of operetta. If you wish to create subcategories, or subsubcategories, for the subtypes, please do so; so far, no one has deemed that necessary. There is no reason to remove a subcategory which is as legitimate and logical and helpful as all other "by language" subcategories throughout Wikipedia.
Softlavender (
talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as is. This is an important category, just like every other subcategory of
Category:Operettas. The fact that there is a
Category:Operettas presumes there should be subcategorizations by language, which there have been since 2005. If an item is categorized as as Operetta, and it is in French, it should be subcategorized under
Category:French-language operettas. This is standard Wikipedia logic and subcategorization. It aids every reader and prevents them having to personally investigate all of the hundreds of Operetta articles to determine what language each is in. There is nothing unclear about the
Category:Operettas, and nothing unclear about the language French.
Softlavender (
talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose. What the hell?
Roscelese (
talk) 17:30, 9 December 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 Whigs
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. I'm not sure what belongs in "Whig (British political party)" vs what belongs in "Whiggism". I'll rename this per nom to match the main article, and per rough consensus here. If someone more knowledgeable wants to create Whiggism as a parent and move articles as appropriate, I'd be in your debt.
Kbdank71 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - the category name as-is indicates it contains members of the Whig party, which it does not. -
The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That is true and something I should have pointed out—as it stands, the category is a bit ambiguous and liable to be confused with
Category:Whig politicians (UK), which is a subcategory.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Whig (British political party). It seems in the US, they were know as Whig Party. In Jolly old England, were they known as Whigs or the Whig Party or just Whig? It looks close, but from the
Whig (British political party) article (reference titles, article, etc.), it looks like Whig wins out. The issue is far from settled in Wikipedia. I searched Google books for intitle:whigs/whig between 1680 and 1850. Although
Books Ngram Viewer seems to favor Whigs through 1850, Google books 1680 to 1850 intitle:whigs had 11,800 results and intitle:whig had 69,100 results. Whig seems likely the more common name back in the day. Also, Whig seem to be more popular than Whigs beginning around 1850 through the present day.
[1] The category name change is consistent with the above List of Categories having Whig in their name.
King of Clubs (Whig club) would be in a subcategory of Category:Whig (British political party) or in the category. As an aside, instead of a piece meal approach, someone should propose name changes to all relevant Whig political party categories at one time. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The U.S. and the British parties were completely separate. To rename the category for the British party has no effect on the U.S. categories for American Whigs. Most of those you list above are American Whig categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:45, 22 December 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:Pseudoalcippe
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:no consensus to delete, but seeing as someone moved the article, I'm going to delete this as empty. Feel free to recreate if the article is found.
Kbdank71 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a genus of birds. The genus has only one species, so the cat will only have one article. Article can be moved to family cat. Just one of many useless cats automatically created by a bot that started a bunch of species articles.
IceCreamAntisocial (
talk) 06:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I pretty much stay out of the sciences here at Wikipedia, so it might be different here than in say,
music, but you might want to refer to
WP:SMALLCAT - "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Taxonomic classification would seem to be a very widely accepted sub-categorization scheme - is that so?
Roscelese (
talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Reject deletion - It looks like the cat is part of the very widely accepted sub-categorization scheme
Category:Timaliidae. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak delete I looked at some other monotypic genera. Practice seems to vary, some have the family, some have [[Category:Monotypic bird genera]]. This species currently has cats for both these, but not the genus. Let it go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 20 December 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:People from Washington, Maine
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. category for people from a very small town (1,345 people in 2000) with extremely limited potential to grow.
TM 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Actually three is a lot from what I have experienced in my rather interesting hobby of late (creating these darned categories). What is there to say that we don't have a few others out there who are from the town but no one has made the connection to either add the brand new category or just place them on the page? There is no harm in letting this category sit there for a few months and come back then and see what arises. Also, for that many people that is quite a lot. I know of a town with over five hundred more and they only produced one famous person.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 06:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Three may be a lot for a small town, but it is not useful for Wikipedia. See
WP:SMALLCAT.--
TM 14:47, 30 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:Cycle types
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.
Kbdank71 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Why we have a category for cycle types but not on cycles is a mystery to me. And, say, why don't we have an article on
cycles? I might have to write it.
MarcusQwertyus 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually
Category:Cycles is not a good name since it is ambiguous. Motor cycles? Solar cycles? Financial cycles? Category names need to be unambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
(e/c)Keep - "Cycles" is ambiguous. Additionally there is already
Category:Cycling with an extensive sub-category tree and matching article.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 06:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong opposecycle is a dismabiguation page. Clearly this is highly ambiguous.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose While I agree that the current title doesn't make it infinitely clear what's in the category, the proposed name is even more ambiguous. I would support a rename, but the proposed title doesn't deal with the issue at hand.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:17, 2 December 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:SDLP
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:03, 16 December 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.
Eponymous political party categories
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, at least as far as this group nomination goes. I will need someone to remove the tags, however.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Each of these eponymous categories for political parties contains exactly one article and one subcategory. In each case, the article is the main articles of the same name and the subcategory is the category for politicians (or in some cases, members) of the party. I've monitored all of these for a number of months now and as far as I can tell nothing else has been added to or taken out of the categories. There are some good reasons to have an eponymous category for a political party; in general have no problem with them existing, but if this is all they include, they act only as a barrier—rather than an aid—to navigation.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Union of the Democratic Centre (Spain), aka UCD, Delete the rest. In the case of the UCD, I've added 5 articles to the cat. The party itself was an alliance of convenience formed in the immediate post Franco period. It brought together some 15 to 20 parties and when it splintered 6 years later a similar number of parties where created. If any of the articles on those parties get created they can be added there.
Valenciano (
talk) 13:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That's fine, if stuff can be added to a category, I'm fine to withdraw the nomination w.r.t. that category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The Spanish ones were created by me, when I created the Valencian Union and Democratic and Social Centre (Spain) ones they included the politicians. Those have now been moved to dedicated cats for the politicians and are now superfluous and can go. I suspect that the same thing has happened with some of the others with them originally including the politicians before those were moved.
Valenciano (
talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That is true—I agree that many of them were probably created to hold the politicians, but those have all been moved to politicians categories now. Most of the politicians categories are newer than the eponymous ones. I should also add that these could always be re-created if the need arises in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see how this hinders navigation, since you can navigate the political party category tree with these, if they are removed, you'd have to navigate the politicians category tree.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Trust me—it hinders—at least it has hindered me in the past in the work I've been doing. I've been working with this tree for a few months now, and it's very awkward to have to deal with these small categories. You can still get to the main article through the political party category tree, since of course the article about the party is in the political party tree—and the politicians subcategories are also always linked through the political party category tree: eg:
Category:Spanish politicians by party is a subcategory of
Category:Political parties in Spain. So you can still get to all the information through the political party tree, but these just add one more intermediate layer to getting there. These add absolutely nothing to the ability to navigate. It also adds inconsistencies to the category tree—if these parties have eponymous categories, why doesn't every party that has a politicians subcategory? One finds an eponymous category expecting to find more, but with these, you just don't get anything additional out of them.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I suggest a little caution here. Firstly, if the head articles are correctly categorised per
WP:EPON, then existence of the eponymous category adds no extra layer to navigation. (And if
WP:EPON is not being followed, it should be applied) Secondly, deleting these categories leaves us wit no navigational path from the head article to the politician categories: e.g. in the case of
Colorado Party (Uruguay) →
Category:Colorado Party (Uruguay) →
Category:Colorado Party (Uruguay) politicians, this nom would remove the middle link of the chain. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
All you have to do is add the political party to the politicians category, if that is your concern. The middle link in your chain is the extra layer, which users keep telling me doesn't exist. Or add a link to the politicians category in the article. I don't see how having an eponymous category for every political party with a politicians category is the optimal solution.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom, but slowly (i.e., list at
WP:CFD/W/M and conduct brief searches for potential category members). I agree that linking to the politicians categories in the "See also" sections of the main articles is better than eponymous categorization. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't mind going through that process. For many of them, I already have, but it would be worthwhile to do it systematically.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom (except for ones per
User:Valenciano have more articles added to them). --
Kbdank71 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I am not convinced that these categories hinder navigation.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Of course they do not impede it 100% but it certainly slows things down, as I've learned by working with them all.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:43, 22 December 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:Russian language operettas
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 and upmerge to
Category:Russian-language operas and
Category:Operettas. Similar entries are hyphenated, so this one needs changing, however on reflection I wonder whether it is needed at all. There is only one item in the cat. The genre is really 'operetta' not 'Russian operetta'. Kleinzach 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and add hypen. This is simply a matter of a typo in the category name -- it needs a hyphen to conform to the other subcategories in
Category:Operettas. There are numerous operettas in the Russian language (many merely do not yet have English Wiki articles), so the category should remain.
Softlavender (
talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
rename to
Russian-language operettas and keep as a legitimate subcat of
Category:Operettas which, like opera, is subcategorized by language. Number of current articles is of no consequence
Hmains (
talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename per Hmains. This kind of subcategorization schemes are an exempt from
WP:SMALLCAT.
Jafeluv (
talk) 04:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and add hypen per Softlavender
Johnbod (
talk) 10:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and add hyphen per everyone.
Roscelese (
talk) 17:35, 9 December 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:Hungarian-language operettas
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. Hungarian operettas (i.e. operettas by Hungarians) are not necessarily in Hungarian. Many of them were in German (e.g.
Das Veilchen vom Montmartre), and there were also numerous English adaptations. (I was minded to recommend deletion as the recognized genre per se is the 'operetta' irrespective of language. IMO this subject is overcategorized.). Kleinzach 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. This category is for operettas in the Hungarian language. It follows the conventions of the other subcategories of
Category:Operettas. Operettas written by Hungarians in other languages are listed in the appropriate language subcategory. It is common for persons of one nationality to compose or write operettas or operas in another language, and as composer and librettist are often of two different nationalities, language is the only logical way to categorize. Not to mention that, what with composers and librettists moving back and forth between countries, and what with changing boundaries and changing empires, it is sometimes difficult to determine what nationality anyone is; whereas langauge is clear and immutable. Any miscategorization (the one noted was miscategorized by
User:Nrswanson in September 2008) can be removed from the category.
Softlavender (
talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Operettas by Hungarians" is inconsistent with the opera categories, as well as being to my mind much less interesting than a category for Hungarian-language works.
Sparafucil (
talk) 06:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
keep as a legitimate subcat of
Category:Operattas which, like opera, is subcategorized by [original] language--not by country. Clean up as necessary.
Hmains (
talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per hmains etc.
Johnbod (
talk) 10:24, 8 December 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:2011 singles
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 per
WP:SNOW. There's no chance this category won't need to exist in a couple weeks, so debating its merit now is pointless.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale. Category does not belong yet as it contains no songs and will not untill at least another month. Anything added there before 2011 is
WP:CRYSTAL and probably fails
WP:NSONGS. STATicmessage me! 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. What's the point in deleting it when in a few weeks it will have loads of articles in it? This seems absolutely pointless as in a couple of weeks it will definitely be created again and will be exactly the same!
Mhiji (
talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps it shouldn't have been created yet. But nominating it for deletion does just seem to be a waste of everyone's time...
Mhiji (
talk) 04:47, 30 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:Indian reservations in Montana
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale. As a sub-category of
Category:American Indian reservations in Montana this category is redundant. Its two entries easily fit into the parent category and there is no distinquishing characteristic between this category (.. Indian reservations in...) and its parent (...American Indian reservations in ...).--
Mike Cline (
talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge and delete per nom Nominator's reasons cannot be improved on
Hmains (
talk) 19:40, 3 December 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:2011 songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep per
WP:SNOW. There's no chance this won't need to exist in a couple weeks, so debating its merits now is pointless.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale. Category does not belong yet as it contains no songs and will not untill at least another month. STATicmessage me! 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep – au contraire, it already contains 3 songs. Besides it will be vast in a few weeks so deletion would be but a fleeting achievement. And it's not tagged.
Occuli (
talk) 01:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Those songs were all either non-noteable or did not belong in the category. Anything added there before 2011 is
WP:CRYSTALSTATicmessage me! 03:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. What's the point in deleting it when in a few weeks it will have loads of articles in it? This seems absolutely pointless as in a couple of weeks it will definitely be created again and will be exactly the same!
Mhiji (
talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps it shouldn't have been created yet. But nominating it for deletion does just seem to be a waste of everyone's time...
Mhiji (
talk) 04:47, 30 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:Transport disasters by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.
Kbdank71 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale. The category suffers from media-like promotion as one moves up from the lowest level. For example,
CSX 8888 incident is listed under two Railway Accident categories. The
Category:Maritime incidents, along with the previous "Accident" categories are both rolled up into this disaster category. The category far overstates the nature of the reports that are included, resulting in, essentially, "category by media hype."
Student7 (
talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The parent category is problematic because some of the subcats are "disasterous" (as it were) but many are not. There's no differentiation in the marine or aircraft category trees, for instance, even between fatal incidents and averted catastrophes.
Mangoe (
talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've gone back and redefined about 30 categories I was aware of so they wouldn't be upgraded from "incidents" to "disasters." There are perhaps several hundred others that are just beyond my energy level and interest. Someone should have caught this a lot sooner. At least in the aviation categories they had the collective "accidents and incidents" but they, too were "upgraded" to disasters further up in the chain of categorization. Hmph.
Student7 (
talk) 13:22, 24 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, —
ξxplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisting note. Category was not properly tagged; done now. —
ξxplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
keep as is The parent categories are
Transportation and
Country, and all their subcats, none of which are being renamed. 'Disaster' is the proper word here; 'incidents' is the public relations/coverup word.
Hmains (
talk) 03:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as an appropriate parent for categories grouping by nation.
Alansohn (
talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's wise to move categories, as proposed by the nominator, but I do think the
Category:Transport incidents by country would still be useful. So I'd vote to createCategory:Transport incidents, which would naturally be a subcategory of
Category:Incidents, and would contained
Category:Transport disasters. There are, after all, Transport incidents which aren't disasters, as the nominator pointed out; this fact lies at the root of this nomination.
Mlm42 (
talk) 20:46, 9 December 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.
Kbdank71 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the name of the main article. Note that this category was populated by an out of process move. No sense in undoing that, just move this to the correct name.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I thought it was standard practice to leave "Corp.", "LLC", "Inc.", etc. out of titles? (In which case the article should also be renamed.) -
The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Please research the name. This is the second company to use a form of
Caesars Entertainment as their name running gaming out of Vegas. The article is correctly named for disambiguation based on the guidelines that allow adding items like 'Corp.' when needed for disambiguation. Given that the two corporations are close in time and that they held several of the same properties, different names need to be used. The name proposed here is what the local rag is using for the new corporation and appears to be their real name. Oh and don't forget that these are not the only corporations to use this name. Finally, it was a mess to clear up the articles after someone moved the corporation to the undisambiguated name.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I just checked the name again on the company web site which still has a few problems. They appear to be using Caesars Entertainment Corporation which if correct would say that the page and the category should use that form.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I did research it, but the one that purposed the merger failed to realize that the
Caesars Entertainment, Inc did not use the Category page
Caesars Entertainment and that
Caesars Entertainment Corporation (formerly Harrah's Entertainment) is a successor to
Caesars Entertainment, Inc, Since Harrah's bought Caesars in 2005 and renamed the company to focus on the brand Caesars. Also even though Harrah's said it was switching to Corp. I have found pages on the website that show it as Inc.[1] & [2]B64 (
talk) 23:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Why not try
this page. Google results for the old company name are not a help in determining the name of the current corporation.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Why don't we use the
press release which lists it as Caesars Entertainment Corporation as the valid source. As I said the first source was the local rag which apparently got this wrong. When editors start moving articles and categories around as soon as an announcement is made it usually causes problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:14, 7 December 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:Italian-language operettas
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.
Kbdank71 17:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete and upmerge to
Category:Italian-language operas and
Category:Operettas. Overcategorization. We already have a well-populated (482)
Category:Italian-language operas. Operetta, despite being an Italian word, is a rare genre of opera in Italian and there is only one article in this cat. If every genre of opera was subdivided by language we would have several hundred extra cats, very few of them with significant populations. Kleinzach 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment – can the nom not gather together these 'foo-language operattas' into a single nom? Is the eventual nom going to be an upmerge of all 'foo-language operattas' into
Category:Operettas and 'foo-language operas' or is it more complicated?
Occuli (
talk) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Good question. I did it pragmatically, cat by cat, because at least one of the (unnominated) items in the set looked independently viable. But perhaps you are right and it would be easier to take them all together? In that case, how could we group them? How is that done? --Kleinzach 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. The Cfds in question are all on this page. --Kleinzach 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, if an operetta in English (or German) is to get a subcat, it sounds as if 'Operettas by language' is viable. It would be easier to insist that
Category:Operettas should not be subcatted at all.
Occuli (
talk) 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Category:English-language operettas ( (39 articles) was specially created for a sizable and distinct sub-genre of works created in Britain and north America. We couldn't call them 'English operettas' (omitting the Americans), nor could we call it 'Broadway operettas' (omitting the London ones etc) so it was called 'English-language'. It was a one-off, unintended to launch a series of 'foo-language operettas'. Unfortunately other editors, unfamiliar with the subject, made the assumption that if there were 'English-language operettas', then there had to be Italian, Russian, French etc. (I opted to nominate these cats one by one considering this, and also out of a general desire to keep a complex subject as simple as possible) --Kleinzach 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Matches all other categories in
Category:Operettas. There is a sizeable and distinct group of operettas in languages other than English. Any category that has been subcategorized in one language should be subcategorized by all of the languages in the category. This is standard for Wikipedia, and logical and most useful for the reader.
Softlavender (
talk) 03:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per Softlavender
Johnbod (
talk) 10:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per Softlavender. We have a categorization scheme, it works, I see no reason to mess it up.
Roscelese (
talk) 17:34, 9 December 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:Gießen
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 Gießen => Giessen, and do not rename the other direction. This was not an easy call. Something needs to change—either the University of Giessen categories or the city of Gießen categories. And there's no one who supports having the categories out of step with each other. A slight majority of commenters here and in the speedy nomination favor the -ss- approach, and the university name makes it clear that the rename is plausible. So I'm going with that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Question: Should the name of categories or articles on English Wikipedia include characters (other than accents) that do not exist in English grammar?
Davshul (
talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Answer: According to Wikipedia's naming policy, there is no problem with it.
ß is simply a Latin alphabet ligature.
Jared Preston (
talk) 19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Request Can you please provide a reference to Wikipedia's naming policy regarding the "ß". I could not trace it.
Davshul (
talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. Well, there is
this, but it's not an official guideline, just the one often referred to by WikiProject Germany participants. Apart from that I too can find nothing about this issue. Does anyone know where we can find this "naming policy" that has been referred to?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think that is on point. What I get from that is basically we should try to follow the most common English-language usage, unless there really aren't any to follow. I find it hard to believe that "Gießen" is preferred over "Giessen" in English-language usages?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, "Gießen" isn't going to be written with ß in many English texts since most English keyboards don't have the letter. Gießen doesn't have a typically English name either, like München → Munich. Gießen is Gießen, just like Düsseldorf is Düsseldorf and Großräschen is Großräschen.
Jared Preston (
talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That's an explanation for the usage, but isn't what
this is saying is use "Giessen" if it is most commonly used in English-language sources? It doesn't say anything about analysing why the sources choose the usage they choose.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory.
76.66.203.138 (
talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory.
76.66.203.138 (
talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory.
76.66.203.138 (
talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The original Speedy nomination was to rename three sub-categories in the Gießen category tree, by replacing the "ss" with "ß". This would have been consistent with the parent category
Category:Gießen. However, the letter ß is a ligature typically used in the German alphabet in place of a double "s", but is not used in English and is probably unknown to the many (if not a majority) of those using English Wikipedia. Accordingly, it is proposed that the parent category (and a subcategory using the ß ligature) be renamed. Giessen appears to be the accepted spelling of the city in English.
Davshul (
talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I have added to the list a third category which includes the word Gießen.
Davshul (
talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think if I had my way I would say we would not use the ß in the English Wikipedia in articles or categories, but I am a little bit concerned here that if we only rename the categories will be creating a difference between what the articles use (
Gießen, etc.) and what the category structure uses.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
If and when the change of name is agreed the articles' names can easily be moved and the articles modified slightly to account for the new article name. The article
University of Gießen was only recently moved from
University of Giessen, just before the category nomination, without any discussion.
Davshul (
talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, and replace any occurrences of ß with ss in any names (article or category). An umlaut is OK but not a ß (in English).
Occuli (
talk) 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and rationale brought up at Speedy for "Giessen" over eszett.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose As much as I hate to have special characters in article titles, the title
Gießen is the proper spelling with the ligature included and we should match that throughout the category structure to match the article title. Cutting and pasting the article title to a corresponding category name is simple enough to do.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I've restored the status quo ante on the
University of Giessen article as such a change should be discussed first and universities named after cities & towns often do wind up using different versions of the name from their city/town in the name they use in English -
Peking University is one of the best known. I'm not sure if we've ever really settled the use of ß in article titles - a quick glance suggests that the forum it comes up in tends to predetermine the outcome of any discussion.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Alansohn. If you want to propose moving the article, the place for that is on the article's talk page. Until then, the category name should match the title of its main article.
Jafeluv (
talk) 04:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The name of the city is Gießen. You could argue that I was wrong with saying "University of Gießen" when somehow that is spelled with double-S, but under no circumstances can it be argued that the city is called "Giessen". This has also been thrashed out at length at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany.
Jared Preston (
talk) 22:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The point is not really what the "actual" name of the place is, but what is the name of the place most commonly used in English-language sources.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nominator. The letter ß is not normally used in English, and per
WP:COMMONNAME we use the common English-language name. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 23:27, 15 December 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:Downtown Core
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.
No, but categories have more problems with ambiguous names. But it can be renamed after this if we decide it is needed and then we have two choices for the name.
WP:RM is backlogged about 40 days, so a nomination there will take us into next year.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Support highly ambiguous. Prefer "Downtown Core (Singapore)". I would also suggest renaming the article, as it will not be primary usage, but only local usage. "downtown core" should just redirect to the downtown article.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 04:51, 1 December 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:Non-free audio samples
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:Wikipedia non-free audio samples per the parent categories. Consistency is not present in these category names, so I took the simplest change possible. I recommend a much broader nomination to settle the differences.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The "Wikipedia" is needed to clearly identify this as a high-level project category which should not contain any mainspace content pages. The top-level parent category for sounds is
Category:Wikipedia audio files, so "audio samples" should be changed to "audio files" for consistency unless there is some copyright-related reason to use "samples". -- Black Falcon(
talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Seems a trivial change and consistancy isn't there for Wikipedia quantifier. The use of Wikipedia was questioned
way back in titles like this and, IMO a completely flawed logic of
naming conventions (the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories) was applied. How is is confusing. Non-free audio can never be a content category. This change is also not consistent with
Category:Non-free logos for example.
Rambo's Revenge(talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
You are correct that consistency isn't there (yet), but it never will be attained if a present lack of consistency is used as a counter-argument to renaming. Also, considering that the parent category of this page is
Wikipedia non-free sounds, whose parent category is
Wikipedia audio files, whose parent category is
Wikipedia media files ... I think a convention exists in this particular case.
The change itself may be relatively minor but, then again, performing the change is also a minor/trivial matter. In addition, while the logic behind
the convention—"categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories"—may or may not be flawed (personally, I do not think that it is), it does currently have consensus. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I hate meaningless disputes like this but note that
Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds was originally at
Category:Non-free sounds. Can you point me to a rationale for that move? I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia quantifier just stemmed from "Wikipedia maintenance" which obviously couldn't be named "Maintenance". One of the other reasons I'm objecting is because "Wikipedia non-free audio" sounds possessive like the non-free audio belongs to Wikipedia. Personally I think the current is the best option unless you make a Maintenance namespace.
Rambo's Revenge(talk) 18:52, 18 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) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Renameper nom to
Category:Wikipedia files with non-free audio samples per Uzma Gamal below. The files are Wikipedia's, but the audio samples contained therein are not makes a lot of sense. (although I do like the idea of a maintenance namespace...) --
Kbdank71 14:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - To Wikipedia or not to Wikipedia:
List of Categories having non-free and/or not Wikipedia
Categories having both non-free and Wikipedia in their name
Rename to
Category:Wikipedia files with non-free audio samples. - I looked over all categories having non-free and/or not Wikipedia per my above list post. The proposed change is consistent with Categories having both non-free and Wikipedia in their name. The files are Wikipedia's, but the audio samples contained therein are not. The Wikipedia qualifier is not for the benefit of you and me, who are in the know. The Wikipedia quantifier is needed to alert non-hip Wikipedians (e.g., newbies) to the fact that the category is an administration category and not an article category. Plus, the use of the Wikipedia quantifier is consistent with both parent categories: Wikipedia audio files | Wikipedia non-free content. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 23:40, 19 December 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:Wikipedia non-free sounds
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.
Kbdank71 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Correct my if I'm wrong, but in theory all of our free sounds should be on commons, so it should be implied that any such content on Wikipedia is non-free without needing to identify it as such, at least in the title.
VegaDark (
talk) 07:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
As far as I know, all of our free audio files are on the Commons. However,
featured sounds (even though the actual files are on the Commons) are still categorized on Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah, yes, forgot about that. Any particular reason we do that? In any case, your proposal seems reasonable.
VegaDark (
talk) 03:43, 13 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) 16:54, 30 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:Arabian people of Persian descent
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; feel free to start a discussion that proposes deletion.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, to match head article. It is also clear from contents of the category and its sub-categories that it relates to Arab people generally, not just Arabian people (those pertaining to the Arabian peninsula).
JackJud (
talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Possibly delete We do have an article on
Iranian Arabs but if I follow it correctly it's actually about Arabs who happen to live in Iran, making the category perhaps "Iranian people of Arabic descent". I also note that judging from some of the entries there is confusion about exactly who ought be in this category.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Also, this category does not seem to be talking about Iranian Arabs, but rather the opposite i.e. Arabs who are of Persian/Iranian descent. Given the historical link between Arabia and Persia, I'd say there was significant migration from Persia to the former.
Mar4d (
talk) 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
If you look at the way we define
Arab, my sense is that it and
Persian are mutually exclusive. That article speaks of Arabs who live in Iran but it consistently otherwise excludes the Farsi-speaking Persians/Iranians. If we mean "Arabian" to be "resident of Arabia" then I think all the subcategories ought to be pushed up into
Category:People of Iranian descent. At least some of the members do appear to be Arabs who lived in Persia, e.g.
Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani. On the other hand we have someone like
Bashar ibn Burd who is clearly a Persian living in (to stretch a border- Baghdad?) Arabia. I'm vaguely OK with substituting "Iran" for "Persia" but the categorization in the whole is ambiguous.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:43, 1 December 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:University of Alaska alumni
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, tag with cat diffuse.
Kbdank71 15:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
For whatever reason, I was limited from posting a longer explanation. Now that I think about it, this category can be useful as a catch-all. However, it's mostly being used by "lazy" editors for persons who graduated from the University of Alaska Fairbanks pre-1975, before the creation of the University of Alaska Anchorage and University of Alaska Juneau (now
Southeast), when the same institution was known as (and the diplomas read) the "University of Alaska." The page "University of Alaska" redirects to
University of Alaska System, an adminstrative bureacracy which (to the very best of my knowledge) awards no diplomas. They carry out the administration of statewide public higher education as "ordained" under Sections 2 and 3, Article 7 of the
Alaska Constitution.
Not only is UAS not covered by a separate category, but neither is Prince William Sound Community College in
Valdez, which is an actual community college and not a branch campus of one of the three main campuses, and enjoys a degree of autonomy as a result. Some graduates could also conceivably not fit in a specific campus category, despite attending those campuses. To keep from you having to take all day to read this, some housekeeping would probably work, though some of it borders on doing other people's jobs for them.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 13:57, 30 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:Alaska State Senators
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. It's unfortunate when a category intersects two sets of common categories that have different naming conventions. Category:Alaska State Senators does match the other US state senator categories, even though it doesn't match the other Alaska officials categories. Sometimes it's impossible to have consistency with all of the parent/sibling categories (unless you want to nominate the Alaska categories for renaming, that is).
Kbdank71 15:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, unless we're going to change all of the subcategories of
Category:State senators of the United States. "FOO State Senators" is the current standard format for each of the 50 categories. That said, I may not be averse to changing all of them, but it would obviously require a broader nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per Good Ol’factory, "Foo State Senators" is current convention, and AFAIK it also fits
WP:COMMONNAME -- I am not an American, but usage I am familiar with is that "X was a Foo Sate Senator", not "X was a Member of the Alaska Senate". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
For whatever reason, I was limited from posting a longer explanation. The pages
Alaska State Senate and
Category:Alaska State Senators were created at around the same time in late 2004. My best guess is that someone created a bunch of pages following an election, and did not realize that the institution of a Senate in Alaska actually predates statehood (and is close to celebrating its 100th anniversary, in fact). Only in the past year or two have articles begun to be written about territorial politicians to any great degree, and the need to distinguish between territorial and state legislatures (and other offices) has become apparent.
In Alaska, we have a common expression: "We don't care how they do it
Outside." I've never even noticed how any other state may have their pages organized. I just know that with the pages pertaining to Alaska, we have an apparent anachronism, if you look at it in the context of the following categories:
The related non-category pages all follow this same convention as well. This category alone stands out like a sore thumb when placed into this context. Like I said, I haven't paid one bit of attention to how it's done with any other state. I perhaps had a notion previously that
Category:Members of the Alaska Territorial Legislature may have helped the problem , but it's being used more as a supplemental category, rather than to segregate territorial from state officeholders. Territorial senators are apt to be categorized as equals to state senators, and
Category:Presidents of the Alaska Senate implies that there is no distinction, and that category page includes at least one territorial senate president.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 07:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename (changed from above). Well—this extended explanation convinced me. I agree that it's a good idea if it includes members of the Senate from the territorial period.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I made a quick search on other states' category pages and realized I may have exposed a peculiarity about Alaska. Most United States can't claim as long-lasting or significant pre-statehood history under United States occupation or rule as Alaska can. It was only in 2005 that the state of Alaska outdistanced the territory in age. It will take until 2050 for Alaska to outdistance the time spent from purchase to statehood. In the discussion to create
Category:Members of the Alaska Territorial Legislature about 11 months ago, I believe someone other than myself mentioned that "Alaska State Senators" sounded out of context given that there was also a territorial legislature. I certainly didn't realize that this was a convention used for every state, and I would have to say that applied to other posters as well.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 08:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Every entry in the parent
Category:State senators of the United States is in the form of "Foo State Senators", regardless of the presence of the word "State" in the article title. The word "State" provides greater clarity to avoid confusion with members of the
United States Senate representing the state. Unless we make the change for all U.S. states and territories there appears to be no argument that Alaska should not follow a well-established standard.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
<<<The word "State" provides greater clarity to avoid confusion with members of the
United States Senate representing the state.>>> This will partially rehash and hope to further clarify what I've already written. I was actually unaware of that prior to this proposal. My motivation for this goes back to a discussion held nearly a year ago regarding creating category pages for territorial legislatures. The consensus was that "State Senators" sounds awkward in the cases of those states which had a pre-statehood legislature or legislatures with significant or notable history, and Alaska is certainly one of those states. The thought of that discussion has been on the back burner ever since. I suppose that this could very well head down the path of openly questioning the naming convention. I'm not so sure I have the time or inclination to shepherd such an effort.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. There's no reason to treat Alaska differently than other states, and the current name is the most concise and clear. The term "member", furthermore, is typically applied to legislators in the lower house of a legislature. Alaska's pre-statehood territorial legislature is not unique, even if it existed longer than other territorial governments, and it's certainly not relevant to whether a category expressly reserved for state legislators should be renamed. If state and territorial officials aren't being kept separate at present, that should be fixed. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:French-language operettas
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.
Kbdank71 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
This cat was created on 17 October. (Prior to that the articles were in
Category:French-language operas.) Operetta is a genre of opera, both as published generally, and as organized on WP.
For French opera, we have a number of specific, creator-defined genre cats (many of them associated with Offenbach's designations, see here). In the case of
Category:French-language operettas it's not clear what is included in the cat and what isn't. Are early forms in, or only later works (
Hahn/
Messager etc)? Is a 'French-language operetta' equivalent to an opérette or applied more widely?
Oppose unless someone is willing to go into
operetta and remove all references to
Jacques Offenbach. We at present more or less define French operetta according to his works, so I have a hard time understanding why Orpheus in the Underworld for instance is by exclusion being claimed not to be an operetta.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Orpheus in the Underworld is an
opéra bouffe or
opéra féerie in its revised version. (These are early forms of operetta by one definition.) But that's hardly relevant. The problem here is overcategorization. --Kleinzach 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Since we identify
Opéra bouffe as "a genre of late 19th-century French operetta", why shouldn't these works be categorized as operettas?
Mangoe (
talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Category:Operettas and by extension
Category:French-language operettas currently subsumes all of the French subtypes of operetta. If you wish to create subcategories, or subsubcategories, for the subtypes, please do so; so far, no one has deemed that necessary. There is no reason to remove a subcategory which is as legitimate and logical and helpful as all other "by language" subcategories throughout Wikipedia.
Softlavender (
talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as is. This is an important category, just like every other subcategory of
Category:Operettas. The fact that there is a
Category:Operettas presumes there should be subcategorizations by language, which there have been since 2005. If an item is categorized as as Operetta, and it is in French, it should be subcategorized under
Category:French-language operettas. This is standard Wikipedia logic and subcategorization. It aids every reader and prevents them having to personally investigate all of the hundreds of Operetta articles to determine what language each is in. There is nothing unclear about the
Category:Operettas, and nothing unclear about the language French.
Softlavender (
talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose. What the hell?
Roscelese (
talk) 17:30, 9 December 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 Whigs
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. I'm not sure what belongs in "Whig (British political party)" vs what belongs in "Whiggism". I'll rename this per nom to match the main article, and per rough consensus here. If someone more knowledgeable wants to create Whiggism as a parent and move articles as appropriate, I'd be in your debt.
Kbdank71 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - the category name as-is indicates it contains members of the Whig party, which it does not. -
The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That is true and something I should have pointed out—as it stands, the category is a bit ambiguous and liable to be confused with
Category:Whig politicians (UK), which is a subcategory.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Whig (British political party). It seems in the US, they were know as Whig Party. In Jolly old England, were they known as Whigs or the Whig Party or just Whig? It looks close, but from the
Whig (British political party) article (reference titles, article, etc.), it looks like Whig wins out. The issue is far from settled in Wikipedia. I searched Google books for intitle:whigs/whig between 1680 and 1850. Although
Books Ngram Viewer seems to favor Whigs through 1850, Google books 1680 to 1850 intitle:whigs had 11,800 results and intitle:whig had 69,100 results. Whig seems likely the more common name back in the day. Also, Whig seem to be more popular than Whigs beginning around 1850 through the present day.
[1] The category name change is consistent with the above List of Categories having Whig in their name.
King of Clubs (Whig club) would be in a subcategory of Category:Whig (British political party) or in the category. As an aside, instead of a piece meal approach, someone should propose name changes to all relevant Whig political party categories at one time. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The U.S. and the British parties were completely separate. To rename the category for the British party has no effect on the U.S. categories for American Whigs. Most of those you list above are American Whig categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:45, 22 December 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:Pseudoalcippe
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:no consensus to delete, but seeing as someone moved the article, I'm going to delete this as empty. Feel free to recreate if the article is found.
Kbdank71 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a genus of birds. The genus has only one species, so the cat will only have one article. Article can be moved to family cat. Just one of many useless cats automatically created by a bot that started a bunch of species articles.
IceCreamAntisocial (
talk) 06:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I pretty much stay out of the sciences here at Wikipedia, so it might be different here than in say,
music, but you might want to refer to
WP:SMALLCAT - "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Taxonomic classification would seem to be a very widely accepted sub-categorization scheme - is that so?
Roscelese (
talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Reject deletion - It looks like the cat is part of the very widely accepted sub-categorization scheme
Category:Timaliidae. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak delete I looked at some other monotypic genera. Practice seems to vary, some have the family, some have [[Category:Monotypic bird genera]]. This species currently has cats for both these, but not the genus. Let it go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 20 December 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:People from Washington, Maine
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. category for people from a very small town (1,345 people in 2000) with extremely limited potential to grow.
TM 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Actually three is a lot from what I have experienced in my rather interesting hobby of late (creating these darned categories). What is there to say that we don't have a few others out there who are from the town but no one has made the connection to either add the brand new category or just place them on the page? There is no harm in letting this category sit there for a few months and come back then and see what arises. Also, for that many people that is quite a lot. I know of a town with over five hundred more and they only produced one famous person.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 06:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Three may be a lot for a small town, but it is not useful for Wikipedia. See
WP:SMALLCAT.--
TM 14:47, 30 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:Cycle types
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.
Kbdank71 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Why we have a category for cycle types but not on cycles is a mystery to me. And, say, why don't we have an article on
cycles? I might have to write it.
MarcusQwertyus 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually
Category:Cycles is not a good name since it is ambiguous. Motor cycles? Solar cycles? Financial cycles? Category names need to be unambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
(e/c)Keep - "Cycles" is ambiguous. Additionally there is already
Category:Cycling with an extensive sub-category tree and matching article.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 06:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong opposecycle is a dismabiguation page. Clearly this is highly ambiguous.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose While I agree that the current title doesn't make it infinitely clear what's in the category, the proposed name is even more ambiguous. I would support a rename, but the proposed title doesn't deal with the issue at hand.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:17, 2 December 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:SDLP
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:03, 16 December 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.
Eponymous political party categories
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, at least as far as this group nomination goes. I will need someone to remove the tags, however.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Each of these eponymous categories for political parties contains exactly one article and one subcategory. In each case, the article is the main articles of the same name and the subcategory is the category for politicians (or in some cases, members) of the party. I've monitored all of these for a number of months now and as far as I can tell nothing else has been added to or taken out of the categories. There are some good reasons to have an eponymous category for a political party; in general have no problem with them existing, but if this is all they include, they act only as a barrier—rather than an aid—to navigation.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Union of the Democratic Centre (Spain), aka UCD, Delete the rest. In the case of the UCD, I've added 5 articles to the cat. The party itself was an alliance of convenience formed in the immediate post Franco period. It brought together some 15 to 20 parties and when it splintered 6 years later a similar number of parties where created. If any of the articles on those parties get created they can be added there.
Valenciano (
talk) 13:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That's fine, if stuff can be added to a category, I'm fine to withdraw the nomination w.r.t. that category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The Spanish ones were created by me, when I created the Valencian Union and Democratic and Social Centre (Spain) ones they included the politicians. Those have now been moved to dedicated cats for the politicians and are now superfluous and can go. I suspect that the same thing has happened with some of the others with them originally including the politicians before those were moved.
Valenciano (
talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
That is true—I agree that many of them were probably created to hold the politicians, but those have all been moved to politicians categories now. Most of the politicians categories are newer than the eponymous ones. I should also add that these could always be re-created if the need arises in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see how this hinders navigation, since you can navigate the political party category tree with these, if they are removed, you'd have to navigate the politicians category tree.
76.66.202.72 (
talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Trust me—it hinders—at least it has hindered me in the past in the work I've been doing. I've been working with this tree for a few months now, and it's very awkward to have to deal with these small categories. You can still get to the main article through the political party category tree, since of course the article about the party is in the political party tree—and the politicians subcategories are also always linked through the political party category tree: eg:
Category:Spanish politicians by party is a subcategory of
Category:Political parties in Spain. So you can still get to all the information through the political party tree, but these just add one more intermediate layer to getting there. These add absolutely nothing to the ability to navigate. It also adds inconsistencies to the category tree—if these parties have eponymous categories, why doesn't every party that has a politicians subcategory? One finds an eponymous category expecting to find more, but with these, you just don't get anything additional out of them.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I suggest a little caution here. Firstly, if the head articles are correctly categorised per
WP:EPON, then existence of the eponymous category adds no extra layer to navigation. (And if
WP:EPON is not being followed, it should be applied) Secondly, deleting these categories leaves us wit no navigational path from the head article to the politician categories: e.g. in the case of
Colorado Party (Uruguay) →
Category:Colorado Party (Uruguay) →
Category:Colorado Party (Uruguay) politicians, this nom would remove the middle link of the chain. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
All you have to do is add the political party to the politicians category, if that is your concern. The middle link in your chain is the extra layer, which users keep telling me doesn't exist. Or add a link to the politicians category in the article. I don't see how having an eponymous category for every political party with a politicians category is the optimal solution.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom, but slowly (i.e., list at
WP:CFD/W/M and conduct brief searches for potential category members). I agree that linking to the politicians categories in the "See also" sections of the main articles is better than eponymous categorization. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't mind going through that process. For many of them, I already have, but it would be worthwhile to do it systematically.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom (except for ones per
User:Valenciano have more articles added to them). --
Kbdank71 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I am not convinced that these categories hinder navigation.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Of course they do not impede it 100% but it certainly slows things down, as I've learned by working with them all.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:43, 22 December 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:Russian language operettas
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 and upmerge to
Category:Russian-language operas and
Category:Operettas. Similar entries are hyphenated, so this one needs changing, however on reflection I wonder whether it is needed at all. There is only one item in the cat. The genre is really 'operetta' not 'Russian operetta'. Kleinzach 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and add hypen. This is simply a matter of a typo in the category name -- it needs a hyphen to conform to the other subcategories in
Category:Operettas. There are numerous operettas in the Russian language (many merely do not yet have English Wiki articles), so the category should remain.
Softlavender (
talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
rename to
Russian-language operettas and keep as a legitimate subcat of
Category:Operettas which, like opera, is subcategorized by language. Number of current articles is of no consequence
Hmains (
talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename per Hmains. This kind of subcategorization schemes are an exempt from
WP:SMALLCAT.
Jafeluv (
talk) 04:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and add hypen per Softlavender
Johnbod (
talk) 10:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and add hyphen per everyone.
Roscelese (
talk) 17:35, 9 December 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:Hungarian-language operettas
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. Hungarian operettas (i.e. operettas by Hungarians) are not necessarily in Hungarian. Many of them were in German (e.g.
Das Veilchen vom Montmartre), and there were also numerous English adaptations. (I was minded to recommend deletion as the recognized genre per se is the 'operetta' irrespective of language. IMO this subject is overcategorized.). Kleinzach 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. This category is for operettas in the Hungarian language. It follows the conventions of the other subcategories of
Category:Operettas. Operettas written by Hungarians in other languages are listed in the appropriate language subcategory. It is common for persons of one nationality to compose or write operettas or operas in another language, and as composer and librettist are often of two different nationalities, language is the only logical way to categorize. Not to mention that, what with composers and librettists moving back and forth between countries, and what with changing boundaries and changing empires, it is sometimes difficult to determine what nationality anyone is; whereas langauge is clear and immutable. Any miscategorization (the one noted was miscategorized by
User:Nrswanson in September 2008) can be removed from the category.
Softlavender (
talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Operettas by Hungarians" is inconsistent with the opera categories, as well as being to my mind much less interesting than a category for Hungarian-language works.
Sparafucil (
talk) 06:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
keep as a legitimate subcat of
Category:Operattas which, like opera, is subcategorized by [original] language--not by country. Clean up as necessary.
Hmains (
talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per hmains etc.
Johnbod (
talk) 10:24, 8 December 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:2011 singles
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 per
WP:SNOW. There's no chance this category won't need to exist in a couple weeks, so debating its merit now is pointless.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale. Category does not belong yet as it contains no songs and will not untill at least another month. Anything added there before 2011 is
WP:CRYSTAL and probably fails
WP:NSONGS. STATicmessage me! 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. What's the point in deleting it when in a few weeks it will have loads of articles in it? This seems absolutely pointless as in a couple of weeks it will definitely be created again and will be exactly the same!
Mhiji (
talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps it shouldn't have been created yet. But nominating it for deletion does just seem to be a waste of everyone's time...
Mhiji (
talk) 04:47, 30 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:Indian reservations in Montana
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale. As a sub-category of
Category:American Indian reservations in Montana this category is redundant. Its two entries easily fit into the parent category and there is no distinquishing characteristic between this category (.. Indian reservations in...) and its parent (...American Indian reservations in ...).--
Mike Cline (
talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge and delete per nom Nominator's reasons cannot be improved on
Hmains (
talk) 19:40, 3 December 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:2011 songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep per
WP:SNOW. There's no chance this won't need to exist in a couple weeks, so debating its merits now is pointless.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale. Category does not belong yet as it contains no songs and will not untill at least another month. STATicmessage me! 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep – au contraire, it already contains 3 songs. Besides it will be vast in a few weeks so deletion would be but a fleeting achievement. And it's not tagged.
Occuli (
talk) 01:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - Those songs were all either non-noteable or did not belong in the category. Anything added there before 2011 is
WP:CRYSTALSTATicmessage me! 03:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. What's the point in deleting it when in a few weeks it will have loads of articles in it? This seems absolutely pointless as in a couple of weeks it will definitely be created again and will be exactly the same!
Mhiji (
talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps it shouldn't have been created yet. But nominating it for deletion does just seem to be a waste of everyone's time...
Mhiji (
talk) 04:47, 30 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:Transport disasters by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.
Kbdank71 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale. The category suffers from media-like promotion as one moves up from the lowest level. For example,
CSX 8888 incident is listed under two Railway Accident categories. The
Category:Maritime incidents, along with the previous "Accident" categories are both rolled up into this disaster category. The category far overstates the nature of the reports that are included, resulting in, essentially, "category by media hype."
Student7 (
talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The parent category is problematic because some of the subcats are "disasterous" (as it were) but many are not. There's no differentiation in the marine or aircraft category trees, for instance, even between fatal incidents and averted catastrophes.
Mangoe (
talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've gone back and redefined about 30 categories I was aware of so they wouldn't be upgraded from "incidents" to "disasters." There are perhaps several hundred others that are just beyond my energy level and interest. Someone should have caught this a lot sooner. At least in the aviation categories they had the collective "accidents and incidents" but they, too were "upgraded" to disasters further up in the chain of categorization. Hmph.
Student7 (
talk) 13:22, 24 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, —
ξxplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisting note. Category was not properly tagged; done now. —
ξxplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
keep as is The parent categories are
Transportation and
Country, and all their subcats, none of which are being renamed. 'Disaster' is the proper word here; 'incidents' is the public relations/coverup word.
Hmains (
talk) 03:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as an appropriate parent for categories grouping by nation.
Alansohn (
talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's wise to move categories, as proposed by the nominator, but I do think the
Category:Transport incidents by country would still be useful. So I'd vote to createCategory:Transport incidents, which would naturally be a subcategory of
Category:Incidents, and would contained
Category:Transport disasters. There are, after all, Transport incidents which aren't disasters, as the nominator pointed out; this fact lies at the root of this nomination.
Mlm42 (
talk) 20:46, 9 December 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.