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: These two versions of the Whitecaps have their own categories, so their coaches should not be commingled in one category. See
this series of Whitecaps nominations for details.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support: Three distinct categorizations of this clubs history. This needs to be split to continue with that flow (although could the current category simply become a housing cat for what would be the three coaching cats?). –
Nurmsook!talk... 18:00, 29 October 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:Japhetic
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. Clarification of the adjective per
main article (to distinguish from language).
Brandmeistertalk 22:31, 28 October 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:Professional
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.
It is self-evident that "professional" is the common theme, also they are generally quite closely linked in context except possibly "professional sports".
I would support a move to "professionalism", however, I Support the proposal to delete it otherwise.
Greg Bard (
talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I dont mind if the template is called "professional" or "professionalism".--
Penbat (
talk) 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as it stands this is a collection of things with a similar name, which is not how we categorize things.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see a category, "Amateur", and I don't see a category for "semi-professional". Just a random collection of hodgepodge.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 05:11, 30 October 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:Garages
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:Split. Currently this category covers two very different uses. One is for a 'room' in a house, and the other is a commercial, generally, storage facility. Also
garage is a dab page. I suspect that the send target may generate some discussion from the US/UK differences. Which is why I chose a main topical article to dab the second one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator, although we could really do with a better name for the second type. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I have added a second option, don't know if that would be better.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestion. "Parking lot" is a pure Americanism which I have never heard in Ireland or the UK, whereas "parking garage" is unfamiliar usage which to my ears would imply that building beside a house where the the homeowner stores their own car. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Split—I agree with the need to split, but in NZ English a garage is where I take my car to be repaired and/or serviced and not a general parking lot. This last we call either a parking building or a car-park depending on its layout.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 02:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- A garage is a building in which motor vehicles are stored. I must certainly oppose "parking lot" which is a horrid Americanism, and probably properly refers to an open air car park. In England (like NZ) it also covers a busiess that sells and repairs cars. It is a word with a variety of uses, and the category should be big enough in scope to encompass them all.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Thnakyou for pointing out my mistake about number. The clear thing is we have to split this because we do not categorize by shared name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Split - It's obvious they should be split, the main difference of opinion seems to be the target name. I think I prefer
Garage (residential) and
Garage (parking). - jc37 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
To me, these two are identical in meaning. I park my car in its garage, which is at my place of residence. If the second was
Garage (parking building), then I could differentiate.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
We'll run into the same problem with parking building then. Presumably a house is a building, and so is a garage? So I went for merely using the term "parking" as a disambiguator, since this (in my opinion) will help give the semantic sense that this isn't residential use. While we may indeed park a car in a garage, when we use the term "parking" it usually gives the sense of parking for many cars. YMMV of course. But at this point, due to usages of the terms, we aren't going to have any "perfect" usage split. So I'm suggesting what will likely be the clearest. - jc37 01:01, 17 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename per nom.
BencherliteTalk 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Clarifies meaning and increases consistency.
ChemTerm (
talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per BrownHairedGirl. --
Scott Mac 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The multiple uses of "of" may seem excessive, but it is needed to make the name clear.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. While some editors feel a cat needs to follow the naming of the article, others feel that they are independent. I find myself more akin to the former group, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:39, 2 November 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:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies
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 per nom, in particular for consistency with the top-level category rather than creating a new category name midway through the structure.
BencherliteTalk 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Clarifies meaning and increases consistency.
ChemTerm (
talk) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per BrownHairedGirl. Not least because the modern constituencies will have far more prominence than the historical pre 1707 ones and ought to have the simpler name.--
Scott Mac 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
BenMacDui 18:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comments Don't really understand the alt proposed by Benkenobi18 - is "Edinburgh" spelled with the extra "o"s deliberately? I think Mais oui! makes a decent point but agree with Scott Mac that this isn't necessary. Can't help feeling there is a hint of "Category:Constituencies of the Scottish Parliament (1999-2014)" somewhere in there?
BenMacDui 18:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per Mais Oui, here are the extraordinary circumstances that I referred to in the above.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom -- There is a headnote that adequately defines what the category is about with links to related ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:17, 2 November 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:Massacres in the Palestinian territories
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 - jc37 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, should be upmerged to
Category:Massacres in Palestine. It is not as if this category is supposed to grow considerably over time. :)
Debresser (
talk) 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
To both Chem Term and BrownHairedGirl: "Palestinian territories" are not a country. That is precisely why I said it should be upmerged to "Massacres in Palestine", which is a country.
Debresser (
talk) 23:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It's the other way around, see
Palestinian territories,
Palestine. The latter is currently an article about the region containing Israel and the territories.
ChemTerm (
talk) 09:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
REverse Merge -- "Palestine" covers Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The two latter are properly the Palestinian Territories, since they have not yet achieved nationhood.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
New Votes since people seem determined to keep the term "massacres" we should leave this category. It is different than a more generic Palestine cat, which can cover things in British Palestine and in the same genderal area earlier than that.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:34, 14 November 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.
Constituencies in the United Kingdom
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 both per nom.
BencherliteTalk 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename both to a more inclusive title, and to fit the pattern of the 2 other national subcats of
Category:Constituencies in the United Kingdom, which I have just created.
These are both container categories, which include constituencies of entities called "Parliament" and also of entities called "Assembly". So including the word "Parliament" is misleading.
I prefer the word "in" rather than "of", because
it fits the pattern for other human-geographical categories ("cities in", "towns in"), etc;
it avoids any pedantic concerns about whether constituencies in these countries which elect to bodies elsewhere are truly "of". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Benkenobi18. Please re-read the nomination, and check the contents of these categories. These are container categories, not categs for the devolved Parliaments, and your proposal would radically alter their scope.
REanme per nom -- As BHG says these are container categories covering all legistative assmblies. "Stormont", "Cardiff", and "Westminster" are mere journalistic shorthand and should not be used in WP for these assemblies.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename Suggested titles are straightforward and consistent. --
RA (
talk) 20:05, 3 November 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:I Hate Kate albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Same band, different name. There is no reason to have a new category for every band name iteration (cf.
A Silver Mt. Zion, who has about a dozen.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge as target is the name used for the article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:23, 3 November 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:Hot Swing Trio albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Hannah Montana albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus - jc37 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
keep the category is more about being part of that franchise that being by that person. It fits in with the other categories concerning the franchise. Also they wouldnt be purely cyrus albums anyway as some are soundtracks with multiple artists.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk) 19:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The article
Hannah Montana is about the TV show of that name. This is supposed to be albums by artist, and the convention we have in wikipedia is to refer to the artist in question as
Miley Cyrus, so her work should be categorized under that name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:31, 7 November 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:G-Dragon & TOP albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. No participants other than the nominator, whose description is inaccurate, or at best incomplete. The only content is
GD & TOP, which is in fact a joint effort between
G-Dragon &
T.O.P (entertainer). Both those articles exist, and if that had been explained in the nomination it might have created a different outcome to the nominator's recommendation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Artist is a redlink —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:53, 28 October 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:Chamillionaire mixtapes
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.
Proposals are more likely to be well-scrutinised and reach a clear consensus if the nominator takes a few extra seconds to list the merger targets, rather than leaving other editors to go find out what they currently are. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:13, 5 November 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:Buddy Miles Regiment albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Tobacco smoking in New Zealand
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.
Oppose, merge into the more general category which is adequate for all the articles on the subject, ie
Category:Tobacco in New Zealand (see discussion of 20 Oct about that category). No Smoking.
Hugo999 (
talk) 12:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
If merging is the issue, then we need a group nomination to eliminate all of the smoking categories. Smoking as a category name is clearly ambiguous since tobacco is not the only thing that is smoked. Conversely, smoking is not the only way to consume tobacco.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The 20 & 28 October proposals related to New Zealand only, and this (28 October) proposal is bypassing the main (20 October) discussion.
Hugo999 (
talk) 04:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Procedural close—this should not have been proposed while the broader discussion is taking place on the 20 October page.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 04:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Tobacco in New Zealand. I have to specifically object to Beeswaxcandle's Procedural close nomination. What should not have been done was the creation of this category on Oct. 27th when the parent category was still under discussion. However since this category was created in a manner essentially meant to be an end run around CfD, we should merge it to its parent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Sure, I'm fine with this proposed upmerge. I was more concerned with having two conversations about essentially the same thing.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 03:48, 2 November 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:Genres of death metal
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. The proposed action says "delete
Category:Subgenres of death metal", but the nominator's rationale says "upmerge", and the one other participant says "delete". The effect of this would be to leave the contents of
Category:Subgenres of death metal outside of
Category:Death metal, and it is not clear that this is what either editor intended.
When a nominator makes a self-contradictory proposal, other editors are likely to be confused, and the result is a no consensus discussion which wastes everyone's time. There are standard templates which set out proposed actions clearly, and they can be used very easily with
WP:TWINKLE. Editors should consider using them when making CFD nominations, so that their intentions are made clear. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:53, 5 November 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:Public policy and citizen participation in California
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 this is a missmatch category with no clear inclusion criteria.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:46, 2 November 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:Iraqi intellectuals
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:Recipients of the Croix du combattant volontaire 1914–1918
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 have been missed during
this recent discussion but it should probably go as well. (In particular, its lone parent was zapped by the previous CfD)
Pichpich (
talk) 03:04, 28 October 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:Crusaders navigational boxes
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 as (very) ambiguous. I think an overwhelming majority of people opening this category would expect to find navigational boxes about Richard the Lionheart.
Pichpich (
talk) 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. I have no issues with the name being changed at all. I probably should have created it in the suggested name in the first place. Sorry I'm new to this.
Mr51cuk (
talk) 21:58, 28 October 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:Four Leaf Records albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete or Rename to Four Leaf Clover Records since that
appears to be the correct name of the label. That being said, I'd prefer deletion since there's no article about the label and as far as I can tell no article about another album on that label. It's not clear that the label would be sufficiently notable for an article. (The label is mentioned in
Jim Riggs and in
Sven Scholander but it seems to be of very limited importance).
Pichpich (
talk) 02:37, 28 October 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:Subdivisions of India
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:Opposed - jc37 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The generic term
"country subdivision" is used 1500 times in the category namespace. The current name is misleading, since in the context of India "subdivision" may refer to a specific type of country subdivision below districts in Sikkim, Manipur and Lakshadweep; details at
Subdivisions of India. The generic term from the top category can be used as a container for all types of country subdivisions of India.
ChemTerm (
talk) 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC) - Reworded.
ChemTerm (
talk) 20:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is part of the nominator's efforts to rename everything under
category:Country subdivisions to use "Country subdivisons". It has created numerous problems where modifiers are required, and should be reconsidered from the top. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
No, we have
Category:Landforms by country, because a landform can exist even if there is no such thing as a country. OTOH, a subdivision can only exist as a subdivision of some entity (or type of entity). In this case we are talking about "subdivisions of countries", so we should call them by that name. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The present category is apt to cover the present states and predecessor polities rules by rajahs, nawabs, etc. It always seems nice to make things tidy, but reality is often less tidily organised than that. There is no reason why Subdivisions of India and subdivisions of Iraq should not both be subcategiories of Country subdivisions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
As per these sources (
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7]), the individual entities currently labelled "subdivisions of India" are in fact "subdivisions of districts" of India. A new
Category:Subdivisions of districts of India should be created to reflect their actual nature and titles.
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: These two versions of the Whitecaps have their own categories, so their coaches should not be commingled in one category. See
this series of Whitecaps nominations for details.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support: Three distinct categorizations of this clubs history. This needs to be split to continue with that flow (although could the current category simply become a housing cat for what would be the three coaching cats?). –
Nurmsook!talk... 18:00, 29 October 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:Japhetic
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. Clarification of the adjective per
main article (to distinguish from language).
Brandmeistertalk 22:31, 28 October 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:Professional
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.
It is self-evident that "professional" is the common theme, also they are generally quite closely linked in context except possibly "professional sports".
I would support a move to "professionalism", however, I Support the proposal to delete it otherwise.
Greg Bard (
talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I dont mind if the template is called "professional" or "professionalism".--
Penbat (
talk) 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as it stands this is a collection of things with a similar name, which is not how we categorize things.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see a category, "Amateur", and I don't see a category for "semi-professional". Just a random collection of hodgepodge.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 05:11, 30 October 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:Garages
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:Split. Currently this category covers two very different uses. One is for a 'room' in a house, and the other is a commercial, generally, storage facility. Also
garage is a dab page. I suspect that the send target may generate some discussion from the US/UK differences. Which is why I chose a main topical article to dab the second one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator, although we could really do with a better name for the second type. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I have added a second option, don't know if that would be better.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestion. "Parking lot" is a pure Americanism which I have never heard in Ireland or the UK, whereas "parking garage" is unfamiliar usage which to my ears would imply that building beside a house where the the homeowner stores their own car. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Split—I agree with the need to split, but in NZ English a garage is where I take my car to be repaired and/or serviced and not a general parking lot. This last we call either a parking building or a car-park depending on its layout.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 02:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- A garage is a building in which motor vehicles are stored. I must certainly oppose "parking lot" which is a horrid Americanism, and probably properly refers to an open air car park. In England (like NZ) it also covers a busiess that sells and repairs cars. It is a word with a variety of uses, and the category should be big enough in scope to encompass them all.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Thnakyou for pointing out my mistake about number. The clear thing is we have to split this because we do not categorize by shared name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Split - It's obvious they should be split, the main difference of opinion seems to be the target name. I think I prefer
Garage (residential) and
Garage (parking). - jc37 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
To me, these two are identical in meaning. I park my car in its garage, which is at my place of residence. If the second was
Garage (parking building), then I could differentiate.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
We'll run into the same problem with parking building then. Presumably a house is a building, and so is a garage? So I went for merely using the term "parking" as a disambiguator, since this (in my opinion) will help give the semantic sense that this isn't residential use. While we may indeed park a car in a garage, when we use the term "parking" it usually gives the sense of parking for many cars. YMMV of course. But at this point, due to usages of the terms, we aren't going to have any "perfect" usage split. So I'm suggesting what will likely be the clearest. - jc37 01:01, 17 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename per nom.
BencherliteTalk 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Clarifies meaning and increases consistency.
ChemTerm (
talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per BrownHairedGirl. --
Scott Mac 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The multiple uses of "of" may seem excessive, but it is needed to make the name clear.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. While some editors feel a cat needs to follow the naming of the article, others feel that they are independent. I find myself more akin to the former group, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:39, 2 November 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:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies
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 per nom, in particular for consistency with the top-level category rather than creating a new category name midway through the structure.
BencherliteTalk 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Clarifies meaning and increases consistency.
ChemTerm (
talk) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per BrownHairedGirl. Not least because the modern constituencies will have far more prominence than the historical pre 1707 ones and ought to have the simpler name.--
Scott Mac 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
BenMacDui 18:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Comments Don't really understand the alt proposed by Benkenobi18 - is "Edinburgh" spelled with the extra "o"s deliberately? I think Mais oui! makes a decent point but agree with Scott Mac that this isn't necessary. Can't help feeling there is a hint of "Category:Constituencies of the Scottish Parliament (1999-2014)" somewhere in there?
BenMacDui 18:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per Mais Oui, here are the extraordinary circumstances that I referred to in the above.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom -- There is a headnote that adequately defines what the category is about with links to related ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:17, 2 November 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:Massacres in the Palestinian territories
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 - jc37 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, should be upmerged to
Category:Massacres in Palestine. It is not as if this category is supposed to grow considerably over time. :)
Debresser (
talk) 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
To both Chem Term and BrownHairedGirl: "Palestinian territories" are not a country. That is precisely why I said it should be upmerged to "Massacres in Palestine", which is a country.
Debresser (
talk) 23:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
It's the other way around, see
Palestinian territories,
Palestine. The latter is currently an article about the region containing Israel and the territories.
ChemTerm (
talk) 09:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
REverse Merge -- "Palestine" covers Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The two latter are properly the Palestinian Territories, since they have not yet achieved nationhood.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
New Votes since people seem determined to keep the term "massacres" we should leave this category. It is different than a more generic Palestine cat, which can cover things in British Palestine and in the same genderal area earlier than that.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:34, 14 November 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.
Constituencies in the United Kingdom
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 both per nom.
BencherliteTalk 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename both to a more inclusive title, and to fit the pattern of the 2 other national subcats of
Category:Constituencies in the United Kingdom, which I have just created.
These are both container categories, which include constituencies of entities called "Parliament" and also of entities called "Assembly". So including the word "Parliament" is misleading.
I prefer the word "in" rather than "of", because
it fits the pattern for other human-geographical categories ("cities in", "towns in"), etc;
it avoids any pedantic concerns about whether constituencies in these countries which elect to bodies elsewhere are truly "of". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Benkenobi18. Please re-read the nomination, and check the contents of these categories. These are container categories, not categs for the devolved Parliaments, and your proposal would radically alter their scope.
REanme per nom -- As BHG says these are container categories covering all legistative assmblies. "Stormont", "Cardiff", and "Westminster" are mere journalistic shorthand and should not be used in WP for these assemblies.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename Suggested titles are straightforward and consistent. --
RA (
talk) 20:05, 3 November 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:I Hate Kate albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Same band, different name. There is no reason to have a new category for every band name iteration (cf.
A Silver Mt. Zion, who has about a dozen.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge as target is the name used for the article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:23, 3 November 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:Hot Swing Trio albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Hannah Montana albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus - jc37 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
keep the category is more about being part of that franchise that being by that person. It fits in with the other categories concerning the franchise. Also they wouldnt be purely cyrus albums anyway as some are soundtracks with multiple artists.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk) 19:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The article
Hannah Montana is about the TV show of that name. This is supposed to be albums by artist, and the convention we have in wikipedia is to refer to the artist in question as
Miley Cyrus, so her work should be categorized under that name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:31, 7 November 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:G-Dragon & TOP albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. No participants other than the nominator, whose description is inaccurate, or at best incomplete. The only content is
GD & TOP, which is in fact a joint effort between
G-Dragon &
T.O.P (entertainer). Both those articles exist, and if that had been explained in the nomination it might have created a different outcome to the nominator's recommendation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Artist is a redlink —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:53, 28 October 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:Chamillionaire mixtapes
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.
Proposals are more likely to be well-scrutinised and reach a clear consensus if the nominator takes a few extra seconds to list the merger targets, rather than leaving other editors to go find out what they currently are. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:13, 5 November 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:Buddy Miles Regiment albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Tobacco smoking in New Zealand
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.
Oppose, merge into the more general category which is adequate for all the articles on the subject, ie
Category:Tobacco in New Zealand (see discussion of 20 Oct about that category). No Smoking.
Hugo999 (
talk) 12:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
If merging is the issue, then we need a group nomination to eliminate all of the smoking categories. Smoking as a category name is clearly ambiguous since tobacco is not the only thing that is smoked. Conversely, smoking is not the only way to consume tobacco.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The 20 & 28 October proposals related to New Zealand only, and this (28 October) proposal is bypassing the main (20 October) discussion.
Hugo999 (
talk) 04:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Procedural close—this should not have been proposed while the broader discussion is taking place on the 20 October page.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 04:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Tobacco in New Zealand. I have to specifically object to Beeswaxcandle's Procedural close nomination. What should not have been done was the creation of this category on Oct. 27th when the parent category was still under discussion. However since this category was created in a manner essentially meant to be an end run around CfD, we should merge it to its parent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Sure, I'm fine with this proposed upmerge. I was more concerned with having two conversations about essentially the same thing.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk) 03:48, 2 November 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:Genres of death metal
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. The proposed action says "delete
Category:Subgenres of death metal", but the nominator's rationale says "upmerge", and the one other participant says "delete". The effect of this would be to leave the contents of
Category:Subgenres of death metal outside of
Category:Death metal, and it is not clear that this is what either editor intended.
When a nominator makes a self-contradictory proposal, other editors are likely to be confused, and the result is a no consensus discussion which wastes everyone's time. There are standard templates which set out proposed actions clearly, and they can be used very easily with
WP:TWINKLE. Editors should consider using them when making CFD nominations, so that their intentions are made clear. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:53, 5 November 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:Public policy and citizen participation in California
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 this is a missmatch category with no clear inclusion criteria.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:46, 2 November 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:Iraqi intellectuals
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:Recipients of the Croix du combattant volontaire 1914–1918
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 have been missed during
this recent discussion but it should probably go as well. (In particular, its lone parent was zapped by the previous CfD)
Pichpich (
talk) 03:04, 28 October 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:Crusaders navigational boxes
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 as (very) ambiguous. I think an overwhelming majority of people opening this category would expect to find navigational boxes about Richard the Lionheart.
Pichpich (
talk) 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. I have no issues with the name being changed at all. I probably should have created it in the suggested name in the first place. Sorry I'm new to this.
Mr51cuk (
talk) 21:58, 28 October 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:Four Leaf Records albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete or Rename to Four Leaf Clover Records since that
appears to be the correct name of the label. That being said, I'd prefer deletion since there's no article about the label and as far as I can tell no article about another album on that label. It's not clear that the label would be sufficiently notable for an article. (The label is mentioned in
Jim Riggs and in
Sven Scholander but it seems to be of very limited importance).
Pichpich (
talk) 02:37, 28 October 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:Subdivisions of India
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:Opposed - jc37 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The generic term
"country subdivision" is used 1500 times in the category namespace. The current name is misleading, since in the context of India "subdivision" may refer to a specific type of country subdivision below districts in Sikkim, Manipur and Lakshadweep; details at
Subdivisions of India. The generic term from the top category can be used as a container for all types of country subdivisions of India.
ChemTerm (
talk) 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC) - Reworded.
ChemTerm (
talk) 20:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is part of the nominator's efforts to rename everything under
category:Country subdivisions to use "Country subdivisons". It has created numerous problems where modifiers are required, and should be reconsidered from the top. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
No, we have
Category:Landforms by country, because a landform can exist even if there is no such thing as a country. OTOH, a subdivision can only exist as a subdivision of some entity (or type of entity). In this case we are talking about "subdivisions of countries", so we should call them by that name. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The present category is apt to cover the present states and predecessor polities rules by rajahs, nawabs, etc. It always seems nice to make things tidy, but reality is often less tidily organised than that. There is no reason why Subdivisions of India and subdivisions of Iraq should not both be subcategiories of Country subdivisions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
As per these sources (
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7]), the individual entities currently labelled "subdivisions of India" are in fact "subdivisions of districts" of India. A new
Category:Subdivisions of districts of India should be created to reflect their actual nature and titles.
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.