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.
I think that the nominator is saying that the top level category should spell out the name, and then it's OK for the by-year subcategories to use the abbreviated form.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep (except the top level category). The equivalent UK ones are
Category:UK MPs 2000-05. The top level one should (at least aim to) be a container only category for the categories for each successive assembly. This seems to agree with the other comments.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename: Am of the opinion that all categories, parents or their children should be uniformly named. So if the parent is "ABC111***", the children should be named as "ABC111***a", "ABC111***b", "ABC111***c" and so on. It helps in searching them easily. Also helps when the dropdown of
HotCat starts showing the similar categories automatically. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
We can use this nomination to decided whether to go with A or B and then accordingly change the other ones if needed. Am pro using "ABC MLAs" instead of the longer "Member of the ABC Assembly" format. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
11:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. We don't name categories to make Hotcat work better. We name categories based on convention, policies and guidelines.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:31, 17 June 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:Muslim views of biblical figures
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. The current title looks awkward in the articles on individual biblical figures (Aaron, Eve, etc). There are articles both with the "..in Islam" titles and without in the category.
Brandmeistertalk20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. The proposed title is more descriptive, unambiguous, and accurate when referring to a topic, while the existing category name describes views (which is a vague term) about the topic. Leaving views in the title may invite speculative listing or listings based on the views of individual Muslims, which would violate
WP:DEFINING.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
22:45, 15 May 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a container category and a duplication the "of Asian descent" category and the "of African descent" category. I've gone through the descent categories in detail and I don't believe there is another "of Middle Eastern and North African descent" category. Many, if not all of the categories in
Category:Israeli people of Middle Eastern and North African descent are also filed in the Asian descent and African descent categories so little merging would need to be done. It is primarily a question if this unusually named category should be deleted.
LizRead!Talk!18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete more unmanageable "descent" categories; if you believe either the "out of Africa" hypothesis or perhaps the Bible, all Israelis are of African or Middle Eastern descent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete In the case of Israel, most of the population is Jews, whose specific place of residence before coming to Israel is more complex. Does a Jew born in Israel in 1970 to a mother born in South Africa in 1945 to parents who immigrated from Poland in 1933, and the Jew's father was an immigrant from Poland to Israel, fit in this category or not? If someone was a Roman Catholic resident of the US, whose parents were Roman Catholics with the same description, would you want to put them in
Category:American people of African descent?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Potential keep -- There was formerly (at least) a significant Jewish population in the Muslim dominated countries of North Africa and the Middle East. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia are slightly different and should be a distinct category. I would not object to a split between Middle East and North Africa. Conversely, the Jewish population of sub-Sahara Africa was minimal, except perhaps through European colonisation. Something similar applies to India and East Asia (though there may have been a merchant community in India of Middle Easter origin. We have loads of ethnic descent categories,
Carlossuarez46 always objects to their existence, but they have survived repeated attemtps to cull them.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:52, 25 May 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:All-Russia Exhibition Centre
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. Previous name was officially restored yesterday, when, according to
Interfax, the appropriate change was made in the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities:
[1]. Same in other national sources:
[2].
Brandmeistertalk17:45, 15 May 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:Skater hockey
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.
Merge to
Category:Roller hockey. And merge and split the article to
roller hockey and the sports federation article. The article does not seem to indicate it is a variant different from roller hockey. Rather it indicates a code uses in a particular sports federation, not a different variant of hockey. The article says it is
quad hockey and
inline hockey, so can't be merged to inline. While the federation itself seems to be only for the inline version of skater hockey. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:31, 18 May 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.
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:Livetronica music groups
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. However, there seems to be a consensus that if there aren't reliable sources that refer to the groups that are in the category as "livetronica" groups, then they can be removed from the category. That may result in an empty category, which may then be speedily deleted. In this case, doing so should not be considered an out-of-process emptying of the category, since it was discussed here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category for a "genre" page with no reliable sources, currently prodded. was tagged as CSD-G1, courtesy nomination. -
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
11:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - Well, the article about
livetronica currently has two reliable sources, so I think as long as the article doesn't get deleted, this category shouldn't be deleted neither. However, the bands can be removed from it, if they aren't backed by those sources. --Λeternus(talk)15:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - the "reliable sources" are not what they appear, the word livetronica is a neologism that appears - if we rely on the sources - to be attributable to a single small opinion-editorial that appeared in Entertainment Weekly. The other source mentions in passing that a single band has been called "livetronica," at some point, by someone. The two weak sources are then used together in a synthetic fashion to give the appearance of proper sourcing. As for the category, where are the reliable sources to support the notion that these bands are explicitly associated with something called "livetronica"? there is nothing notable in any of this.
Semitransgenictalk.17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
the bands here are totted as "livetronica" acts because someone has added the "livetronica" article link to each of the band articles, this we know, but verifiability does not exist here, it is
WP:OR if we do not have reliable sources to support what is offered, it's simply someone's opinion, based on what they consider to be "livetronica," this is an issue with many category and list based articles, but worse here because the notability of this "livetronica" neologism is open to question.
Semitransgenictalk.18:53, 15 May 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 characters
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 the genies proposal the common English usage is "Genies" - as was popularized or reflected in part by the hit t.v. show "I dream of Jinn" </sarcasm>.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Support "spiritual mediums" as
medium could refer to a fictional holographic television, or fictional etheric universe for FTL transmissions. (medium as in broadcast media (ie. TV); medium as in substance to transmit waves (ie. water);) So "mediums" is highly ambiguous. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Support on mediums; Oppose on genie/jinn, which I am not convinced to be the same thing, even if genie may be derived from the other.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:54, 25 May 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.
I think that the nominator is saying that the top level category should spell out the name, and then it's OK for the by-year subcategories to use the abbreviated form.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep (except the top level category). The equivalent UK ones are
Category:UK MPs 2000-05. The top level one should (at least aim to) be a container only category for the categories for each successive assembly. This seems to agree with the other comments.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename: Am of the opinion that all categories, parents or their children should be uniformly named. So if the parent is "ABC111***", the children should be named as "ABC111***a", "ABC111***b", "ABC111***c" and so on. It helps in searching them easily. Also helps when the dropdown of
HotCat starts showing the similar categories automatically. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
We can use this nomination to decided whether to go with A or B and then accordingly change the other ones if needed. Am pro using "ABC MLAs" instead of the longer "Member of the ABC Assembly" format. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
11:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. We don't name categories to make Hotcat work better. We name categories based on convention, policies and guidelines.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:31, 17 June 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:Muslim views of biblical figures
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. The current title looks awkward in the articles on individual biblical figures (Aaron, Eve, etc). There are articles both with the "..in Islam" titles and without in the category.
Brandmeistertalk20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. The proposed title is more descriptive, unambiguous, and accurate when referring to a topic, while the existing category name describes views (which is a vague term) about the topic. Leaving views in the title may invite speculative listing or listings based on the views of individual Muslims, which would violate
WP:DEFINING.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
22:45, 15 May 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a container category and a duplication the "of Asian descent" category and the "of African descent" category. I've gone through the descent categories in detail and I don't believe there is another "of Middle Eastern and North African descent" category. Many, if not all of the categories in
Category:Israeli people of Middle Eastern and North African descent are also filed in the Asian descent and African descent categories so little merging would need to be done. It is primarily a question if this unusually named category should be deleted.
LizRead!Talk!18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete more unmanageable "descent" categories; if you believe either the "out of Africa" hypothesis or perhaps the Bible, all Israelis are of African or Middle Eastern descent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete In the case of Israel, most of the population is Jews, whose specific place of residence before coming to Israel is more complex. Does a Jew born in Israel in 1970 to a mother born in South Africa in 1945 to parents who immigrated from Poland in 1933, and the Jew's father was an immigrant from Poland to Israel, fit in this category or not? If someone was a Roman Catholic resident of the US, whose parents were Roman Catholics with the same description, would you want to put them in
Category:American people of African descent?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Potential keep -- There was formerly (at least) a significant Jewish population in the Muslim dominated countries of North Africa and the Middle East. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia are slightly different and should be a distinct category. I would not object to a split between Middle East and North Africa. Conversely, the Jewish population of sub-Sahara Africa was minimal, except perhaps through European colonisation. Something similar applies to India and East Asia (though there may have been a merchant community in India of Middle Easter origin. We have loads of ethnic descent categories,
Carlossuarez46 always objects to their existence, but they have survived repeated attemtps to cull them.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:52, 25 May 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:All-Russia Exhibition Centre
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. Previous name was officially restored yesterday, when, according to
Interfax, the appropriate change was made in the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities:
[1]. Same in other national sources:
[2].
Brandmeistertalk17:45, 15 May 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:Skater hockey
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.
Merge to
Category:Roller hockey. And merge and split the article to
roller hockey and the sports federation article. The article does not seem to indicate it is a variant different from roller hockey. Rather it indicates a code uses in a particular sports federation, not a different variant of hockey. The article says it is
quad hockey and
inline hockey, so can't be merged to inline. While the federation itself seems to be only for the inline version of skater hockey. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:31, 18 May 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.
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:Livetronica music groups
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. However, there seems to be a consensus that if there aren't reliable sources that refer to the groups that are in the category as "livetronica" groups, then they can be removed from the category. That may result in an empty category, which may then be speedily deleted. In this case, doing so should not be considered an out-of-process emptying of the category, since it was discussed here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category for a "genre" page with no reliable sources, currently prodded. was tagged as CSD-G1, courtesy nomination. -
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
11:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - Well, the article about
livetronica currently has two reliable sources, so I think as long as the article doesn't get deleted, this category shouldn't be deleted neither. However, the bands can be removed from it, if they aren't backed by those sources. --Λeternus(talk)15:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - the "reliable sources" are not what they appear, the word livetronica is a neologism that appears - if we rely on the sources - to be attributable to a single small opinion-editorial that appeared in Entertainment Weekly. The other source mentions in passing that a single band has been called "livetronica," at some point, by someone. The two weak sources are then used together in a synthetic fashion to give the appearance of proper sourcing. As for the category, where are the reliable sources to support the notion that these bands are explicitly associated with something called "livetronica"? there is nothing notable in any of this.
Semitransgenictalk.17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)reply
the bands here are totted as "livetronica" acts because someone has added the "livetronica" article link to each of the band articles, this we know, but verifiability does not exist here, it is
WP:OR if we do not have reliable sources to support what is offered, it's simply someone's opinion, based on what they consider to be "livetronica," this is an issue with many category and list based articles, but worse here because the notability of this "livetronica" neologism is open to question.
Semitransgenictalk.18:53, 15 May 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 characters
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 the genies proposal the common English usage is "Genies" - as was popularized or reflected in part by the hit t.v. show "I dream of Jinn" </sarcasm>.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Support "spiritual mediums" as
medium could refer to a fictional holographic television, or fictional etheric universe for FTL transmissions. (medium as in broadcast media (ie. TV); medium as in substance to transmit waves (ie. water);) So "mediums" is highly ambiguous. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Support on mediums; Oppose on genie/jinn, which I am not convinced to be the same thing, even if genie may be derived from the other.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:54, 25 May 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.