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. Full proper name of group. Will also hinder future Latin-related albums from being dumped into an ambiguous 'latin albums' category, instead of being assigned to their proper record label categories (Universal Music Latino albums, Fonovisa Records albums, Machete Music albums, Universal Music Spain albums, etc.)
Imperatore (
talk)
22:28, 12 January 2012 (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:Trees (structure)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Heaps (structure)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Military history of the United States (1900–1999)
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.
Comment These are not the same. The 20th century began on Jan 1, 1901, and ended on Dec. 31, 2000. True, there would be a very limited chanrge in the content (although it might move the US-Filipino war out, and put the intervention in Kosovo more clearly in). The new name may be better, but they are not the same thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That is splitting hairs, but the point about some of the content is valid. WP uses the time interval of centuries rather than random time periods such as 99 within a century. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
18:38, 16 January 2012 (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:National Public Radio
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: Organization has been renamed; this is even indicated at the top of the category page at
Category:National Public Radio. In addition, propose renaming of the subcategories similarly, to wit:
Question - I'm prepared to rename these categories as seemingly uncontroversial, but...is there a bot that will clean up all the redirects, or a way to make the move so they'll be cleaned up at the same time? That's actually the reason I put this here; I figured there's a "better way" than I would do manually and I certainly don't want to change all the affected pages manually. Frank |
talk 15:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)reply
comment Do not speedy. An attempt to rename this was rejected a couple of months ago & rejected. Nominator should refer back to that debate & contact those participants and let them participate in this discussion.
Ephebi (
talk)
00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I was involved in the previous debate and my opinion hasn't changed, so let me repeat it. I'm ok though not thrilled by the renaming.
NPR (disambiguation) makes it clear that the chance of confusion with other NPR initials is small. If we decide to disambiguate,
Category:NPR (radio) is my preferred option.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't believe that anything has changed since the last discussion to make the category any less ambiguous. Categories are different then articles when the name is ambiguous since it is possible to have erroneous entries when editors assume, rightly so in many cases, that they know what the category should mean. In the end, changing this would add confusion and does not fix anything.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
None of the other pages listed at
NPR (disambiguation) has a category associated with it, so I don't see where the ambiguity you refer to arises. In addition, the existing category name is actually meaningless, since National Public Radio no longer exists as an entity. Frank |
talk 01:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
In Vegaswikian's defense, the fact that other pages listed on the disambiguation page have no associated categories is irrelevant. What we need to figure out is whether a user can erroneously assume that such a category exists. For instance, there's a (perhaps now closed) debate about
Category:Fans started by an editor who mistakenly used it as a parent category for
Category:Science fiction fans. That being said, I think one can make the argument that no sensible editor would expect Category:NPR to be any of the other possibilities in the dab page.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I think it's simpler than that; we need not divine what a sensible editor (nor a sensible reader) would expect; we need only observe what no editor has yet done, which is to create any category that would require disambiguation in response to the proposed creation of
Category:NPR. Frank |
talk 01:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Even if it is decided not to change the name of the main Category, I think the sub-cats can be safely renamed without any confusion with other topics, e.g. NPR member stations, NPR personalities, etc.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename I still think that article and category names should match virtually all the time--applying divergent editorial standards is confusing and arbitrary (i.e. unprofessional.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I see the point about people inadvertently adding wrong pages to the category, but don't really consider that argument any more compelling than the fact that people can accidentally create wikilinks to the wrong article (which doesn't prevent us from using ambiguous titles in article space when there is a clear primary target for the term). In case there's no consensus to move to NPR, at least rename to
Category:NPR (radio) to reflect the name change and naming of the parent article.
Jafeluv (
talk)
11:44, 17 January 2012 (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:Australian electorates contested at every election
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:Convert. This does not seem to be a defining characteristic for a category, partly because electorate boundaries change over the years. The most notable thing is the long-lasting names, and the current policy of trying to maintain the remaining ones. I would think being one of the original electorates may be defining but that should probably be a list too.
Qetuth (
talk)
12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Convert per nom - Agreed with the nominator's contentions. Swan used to be a rural seat and is now an inner suburban seat, for example. Additionally, the number is fairly small, and likely to remain static as uncontested elections in Australia are historical, so it's ideally suited to a list, which can also provide referenced information about each in summary form.
Orderinchaos13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Articlise/listify -- I presume there is a satisfactory procedure for finding electoral divisions via a category tree covering all categories. Accordingly, this has little merit as a navigation aid, which is the objectm of categories. A list has singificnat advantages in that the articles can be arranged by state, and further collumns can be provided in a table.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
listify The category has no meaning without the block of text at the top. I think also that an article might allow a more informative means of presentation (e.g. information about when electorates were established, etc.).
Mangoe (
talk)
12:37, 14 January 2012 (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:User pas-N
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. "This user is a native Pascal programmer" - "Native" programming speaker categories have all been deleted
here as joke categories that don't help the encyclopedia.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:38, 12 January 2012 (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:User Encourages Messi
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. Linked to a userbox that says "This user thinks that Messi is the best player in the world." Does not foster collaboration. "Wikipedians by individual person" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion. Also has improper grammar and an improper naming convention for a user category.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This user category reflects a characteristic that is
overly narrow (limited to expressing fondness for just one individual) and implies no particular interest or ability that would be relevant to the encyclopedia (an
irrelelvant 'like', if you will). -- Black Falcon(
talk)18:23, 14 January 2012 (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:Imposter Verification Team
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. Appears to be linked to the recently deleted
Wikipedia:Imposter Verification Team to categorize users who have been "identified" by the team as impostors. At the very least this needs a rename to indicate it is a user category, but I see no use for this category if the entire project has been deleted, and even if the project is restored (looking at the page history it appears as the reason for the G7 deletion was that it "wasn't ready for project space yet", else I would have simply speedy deleted this as a page dependent on a deleted page, I'd rather not see this crop back up) I see no function that this would have that our sockpuppet categories can't accomplish.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- WE need an article/project before we can have a category for it. If kept, make it a user category. I can see a purpose for the category. We do not encourage autobiography, but there was a case where a pop star's article included lots of "facts" that were really journalistic inventions. He sought to edit these out and found he was being reverted, because unreliable content of the music press was regarded by WP as
reliable sources. I believe the sensible outcome was that the subject's edits were allowed to stand. However, the situation could arise where a user called Joebloggs had edited the article on Joe Bloggs (or Joseph Bloggs), but that user was not in fact Joe Bloggs the subject of the article. It might be useful to have a project devoted to verifying identities, and requiring suhc impostors to adopt a more suitable name. This is different from the sockpuppet problem, though similar.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I was the creator of the project and as you already know, it has been self-requested to be speedy deleted by me. I was going through the process of speedy deleting all the pages related to the project, and I must have forgotten this page. I have since nominated the page for speedy delete under G7. Whenaxistalkcontribs02:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin - While the category has been speedy deleted, it has not yet been emptied, so that process needs to be done at close.
VegaDark (
talk)
18:26, 13 January 2012 (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 pages named with diacritics
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I don't think it's necessary but in any case a category formerly populated by a now deleted template has to be deleted as well.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:40, 17 January 2012 (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:Incarceration 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 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:Songs written by Dean Miller
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Many thanks for the notification on my talkpage. I agree with the nominator that single entry categories should all be deleted, they act only as redirects and have no useful function. But... there are others who feel it is OK where it is part of a larger category scheme (which this is). If we could get consensus that single member categories are all deleted, that would be great. NB I try not to create single member categories, but sometimes there isn't a second entry to find. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
12:27, 12 January 2012 (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.
Association football clubs 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:rename. The Palestine category may be renominated or purged as needed. If any expatriated clubs or other outliers end up in the wrong spot, feel free to move them.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Propose renaming:
229 categories:Category:{Foo / Fooian} {association football / football / soccer} clubs → Category:{Association football / Football / Soccer} clubs in Foo
Nominator's rationale: The prevailing standard is
to use nationality (Fooian) for categories of people and socio-cultural topics, such as art and music, and
to use country for organizations and non-person entities. Association football clubs fall into the latter category and, therefore, I propose that we use country instead of nationality as the identifier, in order to:
Avoid ambiguity concerning whether an Afghan football club, for instance, is based in Afghanistan, competes only or primarily in Afghanistan, is composed of Afghans (e.g.,
Kabul Soccer Club), is owned by an Afghan or is, in some other way, 'intrinsically Afghan'.
Support in principle but this must not be implemtned too rigorously: there is a Derry club that plays in the Republic of Ireland League; and several Welsh clubs play in the English leagues. It may be better to classify their nationality according to the league in which they play. The Welsh clubs mentioned may need both English and Welsh categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree in principle But watch out for "
Palestine" which is a region; there is a dispute about whether "Palestinian" means
Gaza & the
West Bank or "in the region known as Palestine" (see
Definitions of Palestine and
Definitions of Palestinian. However, this is a
boundary case. The other 200+ cases are fine. (I'm a software engineer, so the first thing I look for when proposing a general rule is the exceptions; don't confuse that with being a "wet blanket"; it's a REALLY GOOD idea you've come up with, Black Falcon!) --
Uncle Ed (
talk)
16:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Suppot all, as per nom, and because clubs in principle are not national. There was already a discussion in the past where it was established that clubs are not "German" (exemple), but based in Germany.
FkpCascais (
talk)
06:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support in principle but remember that there clubs in far-flung parts of the world which are Palestinian in some way or another without being in Palestine: you could take the extreme example of CD Palestina in Chile, or several football clubs in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon which are primarily Palestinian clubs.
Abedwayyad (
talk)
06:50, 15 January 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Full proper name of group. Will also hinder future Latin-related albums from being dumped into an ambiguous 'latin albums' category, instead of being assigned to their proper record label categories (Universal Music Latino albums, Fonovisa Records albums, Machete Music albums, Universal Music Spain albums, etc.)
Imperatore (
talk)
22:28, 12 January 2012 (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:Trees (structure)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Heaps (structure)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Military history of the United States (1900–1999)
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.
Comment These are not the same. The 20th century began on Jan 1, 1901, and ended on Dec. 31, 2000. True, there would be a very limited chanrge in the content (although it might move the US-Filipino war out, and put the intervention in Kosovo more clearly in). The new name may be better, but they are not the same thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That is splitting hairs, but the point about some of the content is valid. WP uses the time interval of centuries rather than random time periods such as 99 within a century. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
18:38, 16 January 2012 (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:National Public Radio
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: Organization has been renamed; this is even indicated at the top of the category page at
Category:National Public Radio. In addition, propose renaming of the subcategories similarly, to wit:
Question - I'm prepared to rename these categories as seemingly uncontroversial, but...is there a bot that will clean up all the redirects, or a way to make the move so they'll be cleaned up at the same time? That's actually the reason I put this here; I figured there's a "better way" than I would do manually and I certainly don't want to change all the affected pages manually. Frank |
talk 15:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)reply
comment Do not speedy. An attempt to rename this was rejected a couple of months ago & rejected. Nominator should refer back to that debate & contact those participants and let them participate in this discussion.
Ephebi (
talk)
00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I was involved in the previous debate and my opinion hasn't changed, so let me repeat it. I'm ok though not thrilled by the renaming.
NPR (disambiguation) makes it clear that the chance of confusion with other NPR initials is small. If we decide to disambiguate,
Category:NPR (radio) is my preferred option.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't believe that anything has changed since the last discussion to make the category any less ambiguous. Categories are different then articles when the name is ambiguous since it is possible to have erroneous entries when editors assume, rightly so in many cases, that they know what the category should mean. In the end, changing this would add confusion and does not fix anything.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
None of the other pages listed at
NPR (disambiguation) has a category associated with it, so I don't see where the ambiguity you refer to arises. In addition, the existing category name is actually meaningless, since National Public Radio no longer exists as an entity. Frank |
talk 01:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
In Vegaswikian's defense, the fact that other pages listed on the disambiguation page have no associated categories is irrelevant. What we need to figure out is whether a user can erroneously assume that such a category exists. For instance, there's a (perhaps now closed) debate about
Category:Fans started by an editor who mistakenly used it as a parent category for
Category:Science fiction fans. That being said, I think one can make the argument that no sensible editor would expect Category:NPR to be any of the other possibilities in the dab page.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I think it's simpler than that; we need not divine what a sensible editor (nor a sensible reader) would expect; we need only observe what no editor has yet done, which is to create any category that would require disambiguation in response to the proposed creation of
Category:NPR. Frank |
talk 01:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Even if it is decided not to change the name of the main Category, I think the sub-cats can be safely renamed without any confusion with other topics, e.g. NPR member stations, NPR personalities, etc.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename I still think that article and category names should match virtually all the time--applying divergent editorial standards is confusing and arbitrary (i.e. unprofessional.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I see the point about people inadvertently adding wrong pages to the category, but don't really consider that argument any more compelling than the fact that people can accidentally create wikilinks to the wrong article (which doesn't prevent us from using ambiguous titles in article space when there is a clear primary target for the term). In case there's no consensus to move to NPR, at least rename to
Category:NPR (radio) to reflect the name change and naming of the parent article.
Jafeluv (
talk)
11:44, 17 January 2012 (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:Australian electorates contested at every election
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:Convert. This does not seem to be a defining characteristic for a category, partly because electorate boundaries change over the years. The most notable thing is the long-lasting names, and the current policy of trying to maintain the remaining ones. I would think being one of the original electorates may be defining but that should probably be a list too.
Qetuth (
talk)
12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Convert per nom - Agreed with the nominator's contentions. Swan used to be a rural seat and is now an inner suburban seat, for example. Additionally, the number is fairly small, and likely to remain static as uncontested elections in Australia are historical, so it's ideally suited to a list, which can also provide referenced information about each in summary form.
Orderinchaos13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Articlise/listify -- I presume there is a satisfactory procedure for finding electoral divisions via a category tree covering all categories. Accordingly, this has little merit as a navigation aid, which is the objectm of categories. A list has singificnat advantages in that the articles can be arranged by state, and further collumns can be provided in a table.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
listify The category has no meaning without the block of text at the top. I think also that an article might allow a more informative means of presentation (e.g. information about when electorates were established, etc.).
Mangoe (
talk)
12:37, 14 January 2012 (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:User pas-N
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. "This user is a native Pascal programmer" - "Native" programming speaker categories have all been deleted
here as joke categories that don't help the encyclopedia.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:38, 12 January 2012 (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:User Encourages Messi
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. Linked to a userbox that says "This user thinks that Messi is the best player in the world." Does not foster collaboration. "Wikipedians by individual person" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion. Also has improper grammar and an improper naming convention for a user category.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This user category reflects a characteristic that is
overly narrow (limited to expressing fondness for just one individual) and implies no particular interest or ability that would be relevant to the encyclopedia (an
irrelelvant 'like', if you will). -- Black Falcon(
talk)18:23, 14 January 2012 (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:Imposter Verification Team
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. Appears to be linked to the recently deleted
Wikipedia:Imposter Verification Team to categorize users who have been "identified" by the team as impostors. At the very least this needs a rename to indicate it is a user category, but I see no use for this category if the entire project has been deleted, and even if the project is restored (looking at the page history it appears as the reason for the G7 deletion was that it "wasn't ready for project space yet", else I would have simply speedy deleted this as a page dependent on a deleted page, I'd rather not see this crop back up) I see no function that this would have that our sockpuppet categories can't accomplish.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- WE need an article/project before we can have a category for it. If kept, make it a user category. I can see a purpose for the category. We do not encourage autobiography, but there was a case where a pop star's article included lots of "facts" that were really journalistic inventions. He sought to edit these out and found he was being reverted, because unreliable content of the music press was regarded by WP as
reliable sources. I believe the sensible outcome was that the subject's edits were allowed to stand. However, the situation could arise where a user called Joebloggs had edited the article on Joe Bloggs (or Joseph Bloggs), but that user was not in fact Joe Bloggs the subject of the article. It might be useful to have a project devoted to verifying identities, and requiring suhc impostors to adopt a more suitable name. This is different from the sockpuppet problem, though similar.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I was the creator of the project and as you already know, it has been self-requested to be speedy deleted by me. I was going through the process of speedy deleting all the pages related to the project, and I must have forgotten this page. I have since nominated the page for speedy delete under G7. Whenaxistalkcontribs02:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin - While the category has been speedy deleted, it has not yet been emptied, so that process needs to be done at close.
VegaDark (
talk)
18:26, 13 January 2012 (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 pages named with diacritics
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I don't think it's necessary but in any case a category formerly populated by a now deleted template has to be deleted as well.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:40, 17 January 2012 (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:Incarceration 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 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:Songs written by Dean Miller
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Many thanks for the notification on my talkpage. I agree with the nominator that single entry categories should all be deleted, they act only as redirects and have no useful function. But... there are others who feel it is OK where it is part of a larger category scheme (which this is). If we could get consensus that single member categories are all deleted, that would be great. NB I try not to create single member categories, but sometimes there isn't a second entry to find. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
12:27, 12 January 2012 (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.
Association football clubs 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:rename. The Palestine category may be renominated or purged as needed. If any expatriated clubs or other outliers end up in the wrong spot, feel free to move them.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Propose renaming:
229 categories:Category:{Foo / Fooian} {association football / football / soccer} clubs → Category:{Association football / Football / Soccer} clubs in Foo
Nominator's rationale: The prevailing standard is
to use nationality (Fooian) for categories of people and socio-cultural topics, such as art and music, and
to use country for organizations and non-person entities. Association football clubs fall into the latter category and, therefore, I propose that we use country instead of nationality as the identifier, in order to:
Avoid ambiguity concerning whether an Afghan football club, for instance, is based in Afghanistan, competes only or primarily in Afghanistan, is composed of Afghans (e.g.,
Kabul Soccer Club), is owned by an Afghan or is, in some other way, 'intrinsically Afghan'.
Support in principle but this must not be implemtned too rigorously: there is a Derry club that plays in the Republic of Ireland League; and several Welsh clubs play in the English leagues. It may be better to classify their nationality according to the league in which they play. The Welsh clubs mentioned may need both English and Welsh categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree in principle But watch out for "
Palestine" which is a region; there is a dispute about whether "Palestinian" means
Gaza & the
West Bank or "in the region known as Palestine" (see
Definitions of Palestine and
Definitions of Palestinian. However, this is a
boundary case. The other 200+ cases are fine. (I'm a software engineer, so the first thing I look for when proposing a general rule is the exceptions; don't confuse that with being a "wet blanket"; it's a REALLY GOOD idea you've come up with, Black Falcon!) --
Uncle Ed (
talk)
16:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Suppot all, as per nom, and because clubs in principle are not national. There was already a discussion in the past where it was established that clubs are not "German" (exemple), but based in Germany.
FkpCascais (
talk)
06:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support in principle but remember that there clubs in far-flung parts of the world which are Palestinian in some way or another without being in Palestine: you could take the extreme example of CD Palestina in Chile, or several football clubs in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon which are primarily Palestinian clubs.
Abedwayyad (
talk)
06:50, 15 January 2012 (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.