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: Being a member of this group does not appear to be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. few, if any, of the articles mention it in the lead). We don't generally categorise people by what organisations they are a member of (unless that's what they're notable for). The articles are in categories like
Category:21st-century Welsh painters. For info: There is a list at
56 Group Wales (in the infobox).
DexDor (
talk)
22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This looks to me like a category for members of a club, who worked together to promote each others artistic works. An article and a list in an info box are OK, but not the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:47, 16 March 2014 (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:Environmental skepticism
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: Apparently,
Category:Climate change skeptics redirects here since the category was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. However, while this account may have been a sock, I still think the idea of a separate category for global warming skeptics (as opposed to dumping them into a much broader category that includes books, movies, and all sorts of other stuff) has merit. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks the current category is too broadly defined either:
[1]Jinkinsontalk to me20:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Orlady, the book
The Skeptical Environmentalist is in the category, and I just added its author (
Bjørn Lomborg) to the category as well. The book is about several sorts of environmental skepticism besides global warming (see the book article). So there are at least two inclusions based on other criteria. (The book is also skeptical of certain aspects of global warming, but that is not its focus).
Agyle (
talk)
18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support: Make
Category:Climate change skeptics a member of
Category:Environmental skepticism, and clarify on CCS what is meant by climate change skeptic (i.e., that it's shorthand for significant anthropogenic climate change), or even change it to
Category:Anthropogenic climate change skeptics. I am not convinced there are enough articles to put in a separate ES category to justify its existence, but that won't be clear until it's split up and is given time for inclusions. CCS is specific, while ES is ambiguous about who/what belongs. In general I'd take "skeptic" in this context to mean someone who rejects mainstream scientific opinion, rather than someone who analyzes information skeptically. But many issues don't have a clear mainstream opinion: are genetically engineered produce supporters environmental skeptics, or are its opponents environmental skeptics? Landfill use, recycling glass, nuclear power safety, protecting endangered insects, organic foods and many issues are similar. A few do seem clear, like people who think there's a near infinite amount of oil to pump.
Agyle (
talk)
18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose change as undue hair-splitting.
Bjørn Lomborg aside (and I think he is better described as a "skeptical environmentalist" than as an environmental skeptic), the vast majority of the people in this category are climate-change skeptics (or deniers) or even out-and-out anti-environmentalists -- and climate-change skepticism is an important theme for Lomborg, too. The existing category is working fine; it would not be productive to start analyzing people's specific positions to determine a more precise classification. --
Orlady (
talk)
19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Orlady: Even if the existing category is working fine, the fact that, by your own admission, "the vast majority of the people in this category are climate-change skeptics," why not, rather than splitting the category as I had originally proposed, move it to
Category:Climate change skeptics (which already redirects here, as I noted above)?
Jinkinsontalk to me22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, may main objective is not to engage in excessive categorization. Since it does appear that the current categorization scheme treats "environmental skepticism" as essentially synonymous with "climate change skepticism", a name change could be appropriate. However, when dealing with controversial topics, I believe it is often a good idea to follow the principle "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'm concerned that renaming this category possibly could create some sort of new controversy that the current scheme has avoided. Any thoughts on that? --
Orlady (
talk)
23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, in my opinion, it is "broke" and therefore should be fixed. For instance, the diff I linked to above shows that DHeyward argues that, contrary to what you seem to have stated above (and what I agree with), "environmental skepticism" is "Not [the] same as climate sceptic." In other words, it, in effect, means the same thing as "climate change skeptics", but the name is something more broad and confusing. In other words, since the name of this cat clearly doesn't match its purpose, to eliminate misunderstandings we should change the name to match the purpose. Even ignoring that, though, it would be immensely useful to have a category for climate skeptics, since there are so many.
Jinkinsontalk to me00:16, 16 March 2014 (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:Dolls in fiction
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 Outstanding Parliamentarian Award
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 No need to listify as the main article has a list. A typcial Awards category, where this is trhe normal outcome. If kept a disambiguator "India" should be added, as other countries may give similar awards.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:51, 16 March 2014 (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:Redirects from EXIF information
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. Exif is the usual capitalisation, but this was contested at the Speedy page on the grounds that it should be spelled out in full. –
FayenaticLondon17:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am unconvinced about the need for the long name. The category contains a project page, albeit inactive, called
Wikipedia:Missing Exif redirects.
Exif redirects to the long name and I am not aware of any alternative meanings. There may be a rule about expanding abbreviations but I would invoke
WP:IAR over that, and do the rename as suggested by Matthiaspaul. –
FayenaticLondon22:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm unconvinced as well. Exif is a proper name, as defined by the Exchangeable image file format specification. While it would not be wrong to use the long form, there is no requirement I am aware of to use the long form. Exif is, by far, more common than Exchangeable image file format, and while Exif specifically means this particular specification, a term like exchangeable image file format could mean alot of other things as well (at least to those, who are not aware of what this is about), therefore, I think,
Category:Redirects from exchangeable image file format information would be a weaker category name than
Category:Redirects from Exif information. Basically, I asked for a (common) capitalization error to be technically fixed per C2A, nothing more. C2A definitely applies, therefore I'm quite astonished that it was opposed. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename. Agree with
Matthiaspaul that "Exif", rather than "EXIF", should be used in the category title. This is also to be consistent with the recent correction to the rcat that populates this category, {{R from Exif}}. Category titles should be as concise as possible. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents
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. With the exception of a section in the article about the separate
Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant (which only experienced an relatively minor incident) -- and a single paragraph in another article (
Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, which barely even qualifies as an "incident") -- this category is entirely about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Oh yeah, and the main article link -- which was formerly listed as "2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents" -- is now merely a redirect to
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. (Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}})
Cgingold (
talk)
16:27, 12 March 2014 (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.
Misnamed Australia categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hungarian airliners
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. Recently-created empty Cat, made empty by Speedy deletion of a hoax article about a purported Hungarian airline (
Asert Airways). As far as I know there has never been a Hungarian-built airliner, and as far as I know none is in development.
YSSYguy (
talk)
06:40, 12 March 2014 (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:Projects involved in the Great Backlog Drive 2010
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.
user asm
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.
Rename per Obiwankenobi - Neither of the above options are intuitive category names. Someone unfamiliar with category names would have no idea that
Category:User ASM-1 or
Category:User Assembly Language-1 actually was trying to mean
Category:Wikipedian assembly language programmers: Novice. I know that this is the current system, but I don't know why this was ever the precedent set for these types of categories. I would support an overhaul of the entire system, but that would be better for a group nom or discussion somewhere. In the mean time, however, I agree with Obiwankenobi above - If we are going to have this unhelpful naming convention system, we might as well have a different system for programming languages than we do for actual spoken languages in the ISO system.
VegaDark (
talk)
17:25, 14 March 2014 (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:Marvel Comics characters who have mental powers
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.
Keep I would assume that "mental powers" would include the more specific "mental powers". If there's too many we could have sub cats (telepathy vs telekinesis or whatever) but it's better to have a general category than no organization here at all.
__ E L A Q U E A T E00:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
KeepCensoredScribe, I don't really get your example...what other kind of abilities involving kinesis do you mean? Like somebody using their brain to tell their hand to grab a donut? If that's it, that's grasping for ambiguity. Can you link/describe characters who you think it's ambiguous if they belong? Spot-checking a few characters in the category, all seemed clear-cut. Telepathy, mind control, telekinesis, predicting the future, or pyrokinesis are mental powers. Making an object burst into flames with their brain is a mental power, using laser beams from their eyes is not (the power has to come from the brain, at least to some extent other than the brain controls all other bodily actions). One that seems a bit ambiguous is the
Hulk; his strength isn't a mental power, but his ability to transform may be. Can he transform by thoughts under his control (say, getting himself mad by thinking about politics), or only through uncontrolled anger, and what if it's cause by a more physiological response like an overactive pituitary gland – it's not clear how to consider these in this context.
Agyle (
talk)
19:36, 14 March 2014 (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:Ships in Norse sagas
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. There's a consensus that the category should be deleted and the one article in it (
Ormen Lange (longship)) placed elsewhere. The article is already in
Category:Ships in Norwegian history. There was some discussion as to whether
Category:Ships in Norse mythology is an appropriate category as well. I won't merge the article to that category right now, but the issue of how to exactly categorize the article can continue to evolve through edits and further discussion on the article talk page, if necessary.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I created the categories
Category:Ships in Norse sagas and
Category:Ships in Norwegian history but argue against merging them. The former category would be for "legendary" ships, i.e. ships about legendary Vikings, or ships with non-historical legends attached to them. Some of the ships that would wind up in this category would not find comfortable home in "history".
True, only article currently populates the first category, I anticipate several which can eventually be added. For example, the ship Elliði (Ellidi, Ellide, Ellida) of Thorsteins saga Víkingssonar and Frithiof's Saga. And in Sörla tháttr, the protagonist Sorli obtains Halfdan's ship Hálfdanarnautr ("Halfdan's Loom" or "Halfdan's Gift"), which is compared to several legendary ships, the Gnoð, the Elliði and the Ormen Lange. Another This Hálfdanarnautr was obtained Odd, the hero of Örvar-Odds saga. There is also Vísundr (the "Bison"), mentioned in versions of the Olafs saga Helga.
The list could go on from my own notes, and I'm sure others can pitch in. I anticipate that articles on these ships are eventually forthcoming. I could write up stub articles, but prefer to wait to see if others are willing to draft more developed articles and be able to credit themselves as creator.--
Kiyoweap (
talk)
09:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete We generally avoid categorizing real things by their connection to fiction and literature. There is even less reason to do so when we only have one entry to classify.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or find a merge target. I think the Sagas are about all we have for the history of the Viking period. The question is really whether there is ever going to be scope for articles (other than stubs) on particular ships that will say much other than to tell part of the story of the saga. The one article that we have is a short (but substantive) article. Accordingly the question is how that articel is best categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Well the ship article doesn't actually mention that, but no doubt you are right. Anyway, it's not enough, per several above.
Johnbod (
talk)
00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Not that target -- The target relates to the ships of Norse gods. In contrast the Icelandic sagas I have read in translation purport to be recounting historic events, though ho9w far they are fact and how far fiction is perhaps debatable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:57, 16 March 2014 (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:Society by nationality
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. Societies don't have nationalities, people do. And all of the subcats are for countries, not "nationalities". So it's puzzling that this category was given the wrong name when it was created. Very odd. The Commons Category, thankfully, got it right. :) (Category creator unknown - renamed in 2005)
Cgingold (
talk)
02:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: This is part of the guideline
Wikipedia:CATNAME#Socio-cultural topics. I think the case is strong for culture and language to use "nationality" rather than "country", as they go outside the borders with the people (diasporas), but I see the argument for changing the Society categories. –
FayenaticLondon17:37, 12 March 2014 (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:Railway stations in Arnhem
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.
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: Being a member of this group does not appear to be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. few, if any, of the articles mention it in the lead). We don't generally categorise people by what organisations they are a member of (unless that's what they're notable for). The articles are in categories like
Category:21st-century Welsh painters. For info: There is a list at
56 Group Wales (in the infobox).
DexDor (
talk)
22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This looks to me like a category for members of a club, who worked together to promote each others artistic works. An article and a list in an info box are OK, but not the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:47, 16 March 2014 (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:Environmental skepticism
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: Apparently,
Category:Climate change skeptics redirects here since the category was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. However, while this account may have been a sock, I still think the idea of a separate category for global warming skeptics (as opposed to dumping them into a much broader category that includes books, movies, and all sorts of other stuff) has merit. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks the current category is too broadly defined either:
[1]Jinkinsontalk to me20:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Orlady, the book
The Skeptical Environmentalist is in the category, and I just added its author (
Bjørn Lomborg) to the category as well. The book is about several sorts of environmental skepticism besides global warming (see the book article). So there are at least two inclusions based on other criteria. (The book is also skeptical of certain aspects of global warming, but that is not its focus).
Agyle (
talk)
18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support: Make
Category:Climate change skeptics a member of
Category:Environmental skepticism, and clarify on CCS what is meant by climate change skeptic (i.e., that it's shorthand for significant anthropogenic climate change), or even change it to
Category:Anthropogenic climate change skeptics. I am not convinced there are enough articles to put in a separate ES category to justify its existence, but that won't be clear until it's split up and is given time for inclusions. CCS is specific, while ES is ambiguous about who/what belongs. In general I'd take "skeptic" in this context to mean someone who rejects mainstream scientific opinion, rather than someone who analyzes information skeptically. But many issues don't have a clear mainstream opinion: are genetically engineered produce supporters environmental skeptics, or are its opponents environmental skeptics? Landfill use, recycling glass, nuclear power safety, protecting endangered insects, organic foods and many issues are similar. A few do seem clear, like people who think there's a near infinite amount of oil to pump.
Agyle (
talk)
18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose change as undue hair-splitting.
Bjørn Lomborg aside (and I think he is better described as a "skeptical environmentalist" than as an environmental skeptic), the vast majority of the people in this category are climate-change skeptics (or deniers) or even out-and-out anti-environmentalists -- and climate-change skepticism is an important theme for Lomborg, too. The existing category is working fine; it would not be productive to start analyzing people's specific positions to determine a more precise classification. --
Orlady (
talk)
19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Orlady: Even if the existing category is working fine, the fact that, by your own admission, "the vast majority of the people in this category are climate-change skeptics," why not, rather than splitting the category as I had originally proposed, move it to
Category:Climate change skeptics (which already redirects here, as I noted above)?
Jinkinsontalk to me22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, may main objective is not to engage in excessive categorization. Since it does appear that the current categorization scheme treats "environmental skepticism" as essentially synonymous with "climate change skepticism", a name change could be appropriate. However, when dealing with controversial topics, I believe it is often a good idea to follow the principle "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'm concerned that renaming this category possibly could create some sort of new controversy that the current scheme has avoided. Any thoughts on that? --
Orlady (
talk)
23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, in my opinion, it is "broke" and therefore should be fixed. For instance, the diff I linked to above shows that DHeyward argues that, contrary to what you seem to have stated above (and what I agree with), "environmental skepticism" is "Not [the] same as climate sceptic." In other words, it, in effect, means the same thing as "climate change skeptics", but the name is something more broad and confusing. In other words, since the name of this cat clearly doesn't match its purpose, to eliminate misunderstandings we should change the name to match the purpose. Even ignoring that, though, it would be immensely useful to have a category for climate skeptics, since there are so many.
Jinkinsontalk to me00:16, 16 March 2014 (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:Dolls in fiction
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 Outstanding Parliamentarian Award
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 No need to listify as the main article has a list. A typcial Awards category, where this is trhe normal outcome. If kept a disambiguator "India" should be added, as other countries may give similar awards.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:51, 16 March 2014 (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:Redirects from EXIF information
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. Exif is the usual capitalisation, but this was contested at the Speedy page on the grounds that it should be spelled out in full. –
FayenaticLondon17:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am unconvinced about the need for the long name. The category contains a project page, albeit inactive, called
Wikipedia:Missing Exif redirects.
Exif redirects to the long name and I am not aware of any alternative meanings. There may be a rule about expanding abbreviations but I would invoke
WP:IAR over that, and do the rename as suggested by Matthiaspaul. –
FayenaticLondon22:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm unconvinced as well. Exif is a proper name, as defined by the Exchangeable image file format specification. While it would not be wrong to use the long form, there is no requirement I am aware of to use the long form. Exif is, by far, more common than Exchangeable image file format, and while Exif specifically means this particular specification, a term like exchangeable image file format could mean alot of other things as well (at least to those, who are not aware of what this is about), therefore, I think,
Category:Redirects from exchangeable image file format information would be a weaker category name than
Category:Redirects from Exif information. Basically, I asked for a (common) capitalization error to be technically fixed per C2A, nothing more. C2A definitely applies, therefore I'm quite astonished that it was opposed. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename. Agree with
Matthiaspaul that "Exif", rather than "EXIF", should be used in the category title. This is also to be consistent with the recent correction to the rcat that populates this category, {{R from Exif}}. Category titles should be as concise as possible. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents
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. With the exception of a section in the article about the separate
Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant (which only experienced an relatively minor incident) -- and a single paragraph in another article (
Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, which barely even qualifies as an "incident") -- this category is entirely about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Oh yeah, and the main article link -- which was formerly listed as "2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents" -- is now merely a redirect to
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. (Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}})
Cgingold (
talk)
16:27, 12 March 2014 (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.
Misnamed Australia categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hungarian airliners
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. Recently-created empty Cat, made empty by Speedy deletion of a hoax article about a purported Hungarian airline (
Asert Airways). As far as I know there has never been a Hungarian-built airliner, and as far as I know none is in development.
YSSYguy (
talk)
06:40, 12 March 2014 (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:Projects involved in the Great Backlog Drive 2010
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.
user asm
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.
Rename per Obiwankenobi - Neither of the above options are intuitive category names. Someone unfamiliar with category names would have no idea that
Category:User ASM-1 or
Category:User Assembly Language-1 actually was trying to mean
Category:Wikipedian assembly language programmers: Novice. I know that this is the current system, but I don't know why this was ever the precedent set for these types of categories. I would support an overhaul of the entire system, but that would be better for a group nom or discussion somewhere. In the mean time, however, I agree with Obiwankenobi above - If we are going to have this unhelpful naming convention system, we might as well have a different system for programming languages than we do for actual spoken languages in the ISO system.
VegaDark (
talk)
17:25, 14 March 2014 (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:Marvel Comics characters who have mental powers
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.
Keep I would assume that "mental powers" would include the more specific "mental powers". If there's too many we could have sub cats (telepathy vs telekinesis or whatever) but it's better to have a general category than no organization here at all.
__ E L A Q U E A T E00:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
KeepCensoredScribe, I don't really get your example...what other kind of abilities involving kinesis do you mean? Like somebody using their brain to tell their hand to grab a donut? If that's it, that's grasping for ambiguity. Can you link/describe characters who you think it's ambiguous if they belong? Spot-checking a few characters in the category, all seemed clear-cut. Telepathy, mind control, telekinesis, predicting the future, or pyrokinesis are mental powers. Making an object burst into flames with their brain is a mental power, using laser beams from their eyes is not (the power has to come from the brain, at least to some extent other than the brain controls all other bodily actions). One that seems a bit ambiguous is the
Hulk; his strength isn't a mental power, but his ability to transform may be. Can he transform by thoughts under his control (say, getting himself mad by thinking about politics), or only through uncontrolled anger, and what if it's cause by a more physiological response like an overactive pituitary gland – it's not clear how to consider these in this context.
Agyle (
talk)
19:36, 14 March 2014 (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:Ships in Norse sagas
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. There's a consensus that the category should be deleted and the one article in it (
Ormen Lange (longship)) placed elsewhere. The article is already in
Category:Ships in Norwegian history. There was some discussion as to whether
Category:Ships in Norse mythology is an appropriate category as well. I won't merge the article to that category right now, but the issue of how to exactly categorize the article can continue to evolve through edits and further discussion on the article talk page, if necessary.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I created the categories
Category:Ships in Norse sagas and
Category:Ships in Norwegian history but argue against merging them. The former category would be for "legendary" ships, i.e. ships about legendary Vikings, or ships with non-historical legends attached to them. Some of the ships that would wind up in this category would not find comfortable home in "history".
True, only article currently populates the first category, I anticipate several which can eventually be added. For example, the ship Elliði (Ellidi, Ellide, Ellida) of Thorsteins saga Víkingssonar and Frithiof's Saga. And in Sörla tháttr, the protagonist Sorli obtains Halfdan's ship Hálfdanarnautr ("Halfdan's Loom" or "Halfdan's Gift"), which is compared to several legendary ships, the Gnoð, the Elliði and the Ormen Lange. Another This Hálfdanarnautr was obtained Odd, the hero of Örvar-Odds saga. There is also Vísundr (the "Bison"), mentioned in versions of the Olafs saga Helga.
The list could go on from my own notes, and I'm sure others can pitch in. I anticipate that articles on these ships are eventually forthcoming. I could write up stub articles, but prefer to wait to see if others are willing to draft more developed articles and be able to credit themselves as creator.--
Kiyoweap (
talk)
09:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete We generally avoid categorizing real things by their connection to fiction and literature. There is even less reason to do so when we only have one entry to classify.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or find a merge target. I think the Sagas are about all we have for the history of the Viking period. The question is really whether there is ever going to be scope for articles (other than stubs) on particular ships that will say much other than to tell part of the story of the saga. The one article that we have is a short (but substantive) article. Accordingly the question is how that articel is best categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Well the ship article doesn't actually mention that, but no doubt you are right. Anyway, it's not enough, per several above.
Johnbod (
talk)
00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Not that target -- The target relates to the ships of Norse gods. In contrast the Icelandic sagas I have read in translation purport to be recounting historic events, though ho9w far they are fact and how far fiction is perhaps debatable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:57, 16 March 2014 (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:Society by nationality
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. Societies don't have nationalities, people do. And all of the subcats are for countries, not "nationalities". So it's puzzling that this category was given the wrong name when it was created. Very odd. The Commons Category, thankfully, got it right. :) (Category creator unknown - renamed in 2005)
Cgingold (
talk)
02:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: This is part of the guideline
Wikipedia:CATNAME#Socio-cultural topics. I think the case is strong for culture and language to use "nationality" rather than "country", as they go outside the borders with the people (diasporas), but I see the argument for changing the Society categories. –
FayenaticLondon17:37, 12 March 2014 (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:Railway stations in Arnhem
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.