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 to match main article. This is a Conference club, so that a proliferation of categories should not be encouraged. The headnote needs to be amended to explain that it includes those managing the club under earlier names; and a category redirect should be retained; otherwise someone will re-create it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 21 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.
Rebbes of Chabad
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: Only 2-3 existed of each, and these dynasties are dead, so no growth is to be expected. All articles in these categories fit in old category
Category:Chabad Rebbes. These categories were created today by Hasirpad without discussion or much forethought, if I may say so.
Debresser (
talk)
21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep: (As creator) The structure of the Chabad dynasty, like that of all older dynasties, is quite complex, and I think the sub-categorization makes navigation and recognizing the branching structure easier.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Debresser: I would like to make my point clearer. I agree that Chabad in itself does not necessarily need subcategories: Alfasi lists only 26 rebbes in the extended Chabad dynasty (excluding Strashelye), with one main dynasty and several short, extinct subdynasties. Take Zlotshov, however, with 5 or 6 branches (including or excluding Stepin) and 97 rebbes by Alfasi's incomplete count, or Chernobyl—8 branches and over 120 rebbes! Surely these will require subcategories, and, if only for consistency, Chabad could use them as well.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Good point, but what about
Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch? Eight rebbes is still very few for a subcategory; Kopust had four, after all—where should the line be drawn? (Kopust et al. also meet the "potential for growth" criterion more easily...). (Note that the placement of the first rebbe of Chabad in the Lubavitch subcategory seems inappropriate.) In fact, the Hebrew category corresponding to Rebbes of Chabad has no subcategories, as with most top-level dynasties.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
14:56, 21 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:New Jersey County Clerks
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:Chabad Rebbes
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:Silent Western film stubs
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:Manchester United supporters
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:Sports festivals by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename, though modified to "...hosted by..." due to the discussion, which also had weight due to existing categorisation. Noting that while I did consider the 2 "
per nom" "votes" in regards to the question of whether to rename, I treated them as as neutral to the question of "...in..." vs "...hosted by...", as they didn't specify. - jc3721:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I will go through these one by one and upmerge to the main "sports competitions in X" categories. This is actually the prime issue with the current wording as there is little rationale between what qualifies as a "sports festival" and what is just a "sports competition".
SFB11:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I second this suggestion as it was what I was planning to do if this move was successful. The only things shaking out of the category with my suggested change are (a) sub-national multi-sport events, and (b) gatherings involving sports where the focus is not on competition. The multi-sport events categories will certainly be useful ones, but I creating this structure while "Sports festivals" is intact will lead to quite a bit of confusion hierarchy-wise.
SFB13:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Split per Paul_012. The method I would suggest would be to recategorise all single-sport events and then merge/rename the remaining contents to Multi-sport events. There is no clear definition of a "sports festival" but the page
sports festival has long been redirected to that meaning. (I had been meaning to get round to this one day – thanks, SFB, for picking it up.) –
FayenaticLondon12:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Most of the contents are not multi-sport events so it is not very logical to use the current structure. I'm more than happy to build a multi-sport event structure if this is renamed.
SFB22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
In some countries' categories, most of the contents are multi-sport. Anyway, thanks for your willingness to sort this out. The multi-sports categories already exist; it's the international sports competitions by country/host that are needed. –
FayenaticLondon07:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to support this outcome, given the style's prevalence. However, I don't think the proposed naming is because it could be connfused with competitions that a certain country was participating in. What that wording actually excludes is competitions with multinational participants that are not between nations (for example, the
London Marathon is an international sports competition in England, but it is not a international sports competition hosted by England). Still, we will need to specify this clearly on the sub-national pages to prevent miscategorisation (e.g. 2012 Olympics was not hosted by England).
SFB20:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Just for clarity, as the original nominator I think we should actually follow the current naming style of "hosted by". I do see the merits of using "in", but I think it makes more sense to raise that question as a separate discussion covering the related "hosted by" categories (I diverged due to lack of knowledge, rather than in principal).
SFB22:14, 9 April 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:Fictional Georgian people
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:National Games by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong
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.
not sure there are many other fractions used in the parent of train lines by imperial gauge. How is gauge of a train track decided, since we have both imperial and metric. Is there a trains WikiProject that should be informed?--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support, but we could use a source for that gauge definition. Through {{RailGauge}} (see its documentation), we know some 250 rail gauges used in this wiki. Whenever possible, we use the unit (mm or ft,in) it was defined in (the other unit is mentioned in brackets). The tempalte knows 1432mm: 1,432 mm (4 ft 8+3⁄8 in). The ft,in input is not available, nor is it requested by editors to be made available in the template. So the only use is metric. What would be better is if we have a source that shows it was defined in metric. That would finish every doubt.
For this situation, I am convinced (without source) that it was defined and used in metric. So the move would be according to the definition.
Proposal change. Per
WP:UNIT, there always should be a space between number and unit. So we should write Category:1432 mm gauge railways etc. I assume nominator
Jc86035 can change the proposal into MOS without problem. -
DePiep (
talk)
16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I Oppose the conversion of imperial measurements to metric for categorisation purposes. It is not necessary and illogical. Most of the world's railways were built in imperial gauges. For those that were built in metric gauges (60cm, 750, 760 and 900mm, metre gauge etc), we cater for with metric categories.
Mjroots (
talk)
21:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Germany and Hong Kong both use metric units. It was them who converted to metric (unless you have a source that says they still use ft,in for gauges, e.g. in stock ordering). Since they use metric, we do too in the article. And since the articles use metric, the category name follows and be metric. We do not convert for the category. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know, I asked for sources earlier. I know The HK airport island was created in the 1990's, metric. They would use ftin for the new rail then? Any reason to use a historical unit at all? Simpel: we use today's unit, their todays unit. Unless they use archaic units themselves. Outside of a dedicated historical section, we want to describe the measure of the gauge, not it's cultural history. (Amsterdam city was build pre-metric, in the era of "voet", Amsterdam voet, that is). -
DePiep (
talk)
06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
leaning oppose The whole track gauge grouping is something of a mess, and it seems to me that they should be grouped according to how they are specified. The other issue, however, is whether there is a meaningful split-off here from standard gauge. The actual track gauge of the DC Metro is actually a quarter inch smaller than true standard gauge, but everyone classifies it as a standard gauge system because the equipment is (or at least was originally) gauged out to full standard gauge in order to reduce the play between the wheels and the track. I have to wonder if this is not also the case in these systems given that an eighth of an inch difference at this scale is only 0.2% of the whole gauge.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree with that "mess", it is hard to get overview. I hope the new
this is an improvement. In general, gauges are defined in two units (on enwiki, because we must accept both units; how easy for the
German,
French wikis). We'll have to live with this. About s.g. merging: if it is defined different size, we must treat it as different. However, if it was a deviation from s.g., we could group the categories (same with early gauge variants in Iberian and Russian). Still, that would leave us with the question of this category title. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that we do have to treat it as "different". I'm having some serious troubles in all of this because the Hong Kong example is cited to an extremely summary article and the Nuremberg statement isn't cited at all; in the latter case the system is old enough to where a non-metric specification is plausible. But the other issue is that we're creating the impression that an 1/8"/3 mm difference is significant when we already have information that twice that much isn't significant.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
To make it simple: this CfD is about the three category names. A merge should be discussed at
WT:TRAINS, right? (If you convince others there, the categories will disappear. Whichever name they have). -
DePiep (
talk)
13:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support as per
DePiep. Makes no sense to apply imperial units to metric systems. The units used when the system was first constructed should not be determinative of the modern classification.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
07:43, 21 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:Electropop songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:East Khasi Hills
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:People of the 2014 Crimean crisis
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 -- but it should be limited to people directly involved, excluding foreign politicians and diplomats. In using "foreign" I mean people outside Crimea, whether in Russia proper or the rest of Ukraine.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:11, 21 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:Schneersohn dynasty
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is not about a "dynasty" in any of the usual senses, but about the Schneersohn family. The Schneersohn family includes most leaders of the
Chabad Hasidic group, but
Category:Chabad-Lubavitch (Hasidic dynasty) and related categories exist for that purpose; this category includes notable members of the same family that neither held positions of power in the Chabad movement nor were followers of the movement.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
02:16, 20 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.
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 to match main article. This is a Conference club, so that a proliferation of categories should not be encouraged. The headnote needs to be amended to explain that it includes those managing the club under earlier names; and a category redirect should be retained; otherwise someone will re-create it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 21 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.
Rebbes of Chabad
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: Only 2-3 existed of each, and these dynasties are dead, so no growth is to be expected. All articles in these categories fit in old category
Category:Chabad Rebbes. These categories were created today by Hasirpad without discussion or much forethought, if I may say so.
Debresser (
talk)
21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep: (As creator) The structure of the Chabad dynasty, like that of all older dynasties, is quite complex, and I think the sub-categorization makes navigation and recognizing the branching structure easier.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Debresser: I would like to make my point clearer. I agree that Chabad in itself does not necessarily need subcategories: Alfasi lists only 26 rebbes in the extended Chabad dynasty (excluding Strashelye), with one main dynasty and several short, extinct subdynasties. Take Zlotshov, however, with 5 or 6 branches (including or excluding Stepin) and 97 rebbes by Alfasi's incomplete count, or Chernobyl—8 branches and over 120 rebbes! Surely these will require subcategories, and, if only for consistency, Chabad could use them as well.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Good point, but what about
Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch? Eight rebbes is still very few for a subcategory; Kopust had four, after all—where should the line be drawn? (Kopust et al. also meet the "potential for growth" criterion more easily...). (Note that the placement of the first rebbe of Chabad in the Lubavitch subcategory seems inappropriate.) In fact, the Hebrew category corresponding to Rebbes of Chabad has no subcategories, as with most top-level dynasties.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
14:56, 21 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:New Jersey County Clerks
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:Chabad Rebbes
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:Silent Western film stubs
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:Manchester United supporters
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:Sports festivals by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename, though modified to "...hosted by..." due to the discussion, which also had weight due to existing categorisation. Noting that while I did consider the 2 "
per nom" "votes" in regards to the question of whether to rename, I treated them as as neutral to the question of "...in..." vs "...hosted by...", as they didn't specify. - jc3721:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I will go through these one by one and upmerge to the main "sports competitions in X" categories. This is actually the prime issue with the current wording as there is little rationale between what qualifies as a "sports festival" and what is just a "sports competition".
SFB11:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I second this suggestion as it was what I was planning to do if this move was successful. The only things shaking out of the category with my suggested change are (a) sub-national multi-sport events, and (b) gatherings involving sports where the focus is not on competition. The multi-sport events categories will certainly be useful ones, but I creating this structure while "Sports festivals" is intact will lead to quite a bit of confusion hierarchy-wise.
SFB13:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Split per Paul_012. The method I would suggest would be to recategorise all single-sport events and then merge/rename the remaining contents to Multi-sport events. There is no clear definition of a "sports festival" but the page
sports festival has long been redirected to that meaning. (I had been meaning to get round to this one day – thanks, SFB, for picking it up.) –
FayenaticLondon12:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Most of the contents are not multi-sport events so it is not very logical to use the current structure. I'm more than happy to build a multi-sport event structure if this is renamed.
SFB22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)reply
In some countries' categories, most of the contents are multi-sport. Anyway, thanks for your willingness to sort this out. The multi-sports categories already exist; it's the international sports competitions by country/host that are needed. –
FayenaticLondon07:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to support this outcome, given the style's prevalence. However, I don't think the proposed naming is because it could be connfused with competitions that a certain country was participating in. What that wording actually excludes is competitions with multinational participants that are not between nations (for example, the
London Marathon is an international sports competition in England, but it is not a international sports competition hosted by England). Still, we will need to specify this clearly on the sub-national pages to prevent miscategorisation (e.g. 2012 Olympics was not hosted by England).
SFB20:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Just for clarity, as the original nominator I think we should actually follow the current naming style of "hosted by". I do see the merits of using "in", but I think it makes more sense to raise that question as a separate discussion covering the related "hosted by" categories (I diverged due to lack of knowledge, rather than in principal).
SFB22:14, 9 April 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:Fictional Georgian people
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:National Games by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong
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.
not sure there are many other fractions used in the parent of train lines by imperial gauge. How is gauge of a train track decided, since we have both imperial and metric. Is there a trains WikiProject that should be informed?--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support, but we could use a source for that gauge definition. Through {{RailGauge}} (see its documentation), we know some 250 rail gauges used in this wiki. Whenever possible, we use the unit (mm or ft,in) it was defined in (the other unit is mentioned in brackets). The tempalte knows 1432mm: 1,432 mm (4 ft 8+3⁄8 in). The ft,in input is not available, nor is it requested by editors to be made available in the template. So the only use is metric. What would be better is if we have a source that shows it was defined in metric. That would finish every doubt.
For this situation, I am convinced (without source) that it was defined and used in metric. So the move would be according to the definition.
Proposal change. Per
WP:UNIT, there always should be a space between number and unit. So we should write Category:1432 mm gauge railways etc. I assume nominator
Jc86035 can change the proposal into MOS without problem. -
DePiep (
talk)
16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I Oppose the conversion of imperial measurements to metric for categorisation purposes. It is not necessary and illogical. Most of the world's railways were built in imperial gauges. For those that were built in metric gauges (60cm, 750, 760 and 900mm, metre gauge etc), we cater for with metric categories.
Mjroots (
talk)
21:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Germany and Hong Kong both use metric units. It was them who converted to metric (unless you have a source that says they still use ft,in for gauges, e.g. in stock ordering). Since they use metric, we do too in the article. And since the articles use metric, the category name follows and be metric. We do not convert for the category. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know, I asked for sources earlier. I know The HK airport island was created in the 1990's, metric. They would use ftin for the new rail then? Any reason to use a historical unit at all? Simpel: we use today's unit, their todays unit. Unless they use archaic units themselves. Outside of a dedicated historical section, we want to describe the measure of the gauge, not it's cultural history. (Amsterdam city was build pre-metric, in the era of "voet", Amsterdam voet, that is). -
DePiep (
talk)
06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
leaning oppose The whole track gauge grouping is something of a mess, and it seems to me that they should be grouped according to how they are specified. The other issue, however, is whether there is a meaningful split-off here from standard gauge. The actual track gauge of the DC Metro is actually a quarter inch smaller than true standard gauge, but everyone classifies it as a standard gauge system because the equipment is (or at least was originally) gauged out to full standard gauge in order to reduce the play between the wheels and the track. I have to wonder if this is not also the case in these systems given that an eighth of an inch difference at this scale is only 0.2% of the whole gauge.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree with that "mess", it is hard to get overview. I hope the new
this is an improvement. In general, gauges are defined in two units (on enwiki, because we must accept both units; how easy for the
German,
French wikis). We'll have to live with this. About s.g. merging: if it is defined different size, we must treat it as different. However, if it was a deviation from s.g., we could group the categories (same with early gauge variants in Iberian and Russian). Still, that would leave us with the question of this category title. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that we do have to treat it as "different". I'm having some serious troubles in all of this because the Hong Kong example is cited to an extremely summary article and the Nuremberg statement isn't cited at all; in the latter case the system is old enough to where a non-metric specification is plausible. But the other issue is that we're creating the impression that an 1/8"/3 mm difference is significant when we already have information that twice that much isn't significant.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
To make it simple: this CfD is about the three category names. A merge should be discussed at
WT:TRAINS, right? (If you convince others there, the categories will disappear. Whichever name they have). -
DePiep (
talk)
13:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Support as per
DePiep. Makes no sense to apply imperial units to metric systems. The units used when the system was first constructed should not be determinative of the modern classification.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
07:43, 21 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:Electropop songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:East Khasi Hills
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:People of the 2014 Crimean crisis
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 -- but it should be limited to people directly involved, excluding foreign politicians and diplomats. In using "foreign" I mean people outside Crimea, whether in Russia proper or the rest of Ukraine.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:11, 21 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:Schneersohn dynasty
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is not about a "dynasty" in any of the usual senses, but about the Schneersohn family. The Schneersohn family includes most leaders of the
Chabad Hasidic group, but
Category:Chabad-Lubavitch (Hasidic dynasty) and related categories exist for that purpose; this category includes notable members of the same family that neither held positions of power in the Chabad movement nor were followers of the movement.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
02:16, 20 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.