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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Carbon neutral products ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. First off, this is not about products, it is about the trading of credits and offsets for using carbon products. I suspect that at some point there will be a need for some type of categorization in this area, but we are not ready for it yet. So delete and let the future articles drive the way we categorize. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yeppers, another essentially empty category by Mac/Nopetro. Delete. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Real estate crises ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete or something. Yea, this is one from Nopetro. The problem here is, what defines a real estate crisis? Note, real estate crisis redirects to Subprime mortgage crisis which already has a category. A real estate bubble is not by definition a crisis. Is the 2008–2009 Spanish financial crisis a real estate crisis or a fuel oil crisis? Is the Category:Subprime mortgage crisis a real estate crisis, the cause of a real estate crisis or the result of a real estate crisis? Without some clear inclusion guidelines, I'm afraid that inclusion here is completely subjective. So either we have clear inclusion guidelines or this needs to be deleted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE along with sub-cat Category:Late 2000s global real estate crisis. As we saw during his vain attempt to defend Category:Gold_bubbles, things are what he decides they are and he has decided these are real estate crises. They may be, in part. But it will never be objectively known to be the objective cause, as the nominator points out, rather than one effect of many. Recessions have a range of symptoms, real estate woes just being one. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Heads of settlement to Category:Heads of local government

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per this recently closed discussion, I'm renominating this to a concept that was proposed during the discussion. Seems like a perfectly good name to me.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support as the parent category. If we approve this change, its use in lower levels of the category tree should probably be limited since below this point, local naming should drive the category naming. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. This seems like a good suggestion that was made late in the game at the previous discussion. Category:Heads of settlement is not a great category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete both. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Vehicles by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Vehicles of China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vehicles by country contains only one category, which itself contains only Category:Cars of China, which is already in Category:Automobiles by country. If there is ever interest in grouping automobiles/aircraft/ships/etc. by country under one Vehicles by country category, okay, but for now it seems unnecessary and undesired. -- Vossanova ^o< 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree. If someone -- other than another sockpuppet of banned user Mac -- wants to take the time to construct a coherent category tree, fine. But this aborted attempt has been roundly ignored since September 2009. WP:SMALLCAT it is not, but delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The award may well very be notable, but categorization of its recipients was not approved by consensus seen here. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Recipients of the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Although I think the award is notable, Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients strongly suggests that it should be a list, rather than a category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. List is at Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty redirecting to Cato Institute#Milton Friedman Prize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Category creator notified using {{ cfd-notify}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The award is notable and significant. I think the award should have its own page given Google search shows 15,400 ghits [1]. Since their are other categories for award recipients, there is no point deleting it. -- Galactic Traveller ( talk) 05:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

  The award does indeed have its own article, Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, and there is (AFAIL) no proposal to delete that article. This discussion is about someting different, viz. categorising the recipients, where Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients applies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I am in agreement with Arthur in this case. This award simply does not reach the level of notability required to justify a category. (With only 15,400 ghits even the Cato Institute might be having second thoughts... ) Cgingold ( talk) 07:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator and Cgingold. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I felt great joy upon reading WP:Overcategorization#Award recipients, because I have long thought that there has been abuse/overmention of awards on Wikipedia. Abductive ( reasoning) 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the guideline cited by the nominator. Seems like a garden variety awards category which are deleted often. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. The former will be redirected to the latter. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Wells Grey-Clearwater to Category:Wells Gray-Clearwater

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that there is a typo in the name of this category and it should be spelled Wells Gray, not Wells Grey. Zeitlupe ( talk) 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename: Both spellings seems to be used (even by the official site), but according to World Database On Protected Areas the name is spelled 'Gray', this also seems to be the most widely used spelling. jonkerz ♠ 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:James Blood Ulmer albums since consensus in discussion was to move article to James Blood Ulmer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:James "Blood" Ulmer albums to Category:James Ulmer albums

Nominator's rationale: Per James "Blood" Ulmer/ James Ulmer. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep All his albums that I know of are credited to James "Blood" Ulmer (and the Allmusic biography is entitled James Blood Ulmer), so better to rename the article than the category. AllyD ( talk) 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• And I notice the point has previously been raised on Talk:James Ulmer. AllyD ( talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Article has now been renamed so Rename to Category:James Blood Ulmer albums to match. AllyD ( talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD ( talk) 20:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep, or (less simply) perhaps rename to James Blood Ulmer (no double-quotes around Blood; Trouser Press agrees with Allmusic in this regard [2]). In any case, "Blood" should be in there, with or without quotes. (FWIW I have even seen one album cover that simply credits him as James Blood.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: A move request has been started at Talk:James Ulmer. The category names should match whatever is decided there, methinks. Jafeluv ( talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename category and entry to James Blood Ulmer without double quotes around Blood as consistent with (most) other references and album covers. DISEman ( talk) 08:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
•  Administrator note Awaiting result of requested move. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:NBA Championship templates to Category:National Basketball Association Championship templates

Nominator's rationale: To conform with other National Basketball Association categories, which don't abbreviate it to "NBA". Jrcla2 ( talk) 16:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted to 26 July. Courcelles ( talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Underutilized crops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Retained as a no consensus keep in 2006, this category remains a case of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, I would argue. Its main article Underutilized crop is still little better than an unreferenced stub. It may pass muster as a list but to quote the guideline, "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. This seems to be a designation that is advanced by the International Centre for Underutilized Crops. I wouldn't be surprised if that organization is partially funded by farmers or sellers of these particular crops. There's nothing inherent about a crop that makes it "underutilized", and although a crop may be deemed "underutilized" on a global scale, it may not be underutilized in one or more particular locations, regions, or countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

• That is simply not true. The International Centre for Underutilised Crops was founded in 1989, but the term clearly predates that year. In fact, this is a typical NGO that's just trying to help people not starve to death. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yeah, but where does it get its money (wink)? There's almost always a money angle, even with do-gooders. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Typically the potential of these crops is underappreciated even by the people that grow and sell them. These farmers are mostly illiterate peasants, not sophisticated marketeers. The only people who talk about underutilized crops are agricultural scientists such as Norman Borlaug. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Which again raises the issue of whether this designation is really that defining for the crops involved. If no one really talks about these except a few agricultural scientists, it seems to be something that WP should address in a list or an article rather than categorization, which is meant to capture defining qualities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• I don't know how to convey just how important this topic is, but please let me assure you that is is very important. Basically, there are over-utilized crops such as cotton. Then there are crops which are getting the right amount of attention, such as apples, and then there are crops that should be getting more attention from scientists, breeders, farmers and consumers. Just try typing in the word "underutilized" into Google Books, and the first thing that comes up are books on underutilized crops. Abductive ( reasoning) 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep The focus of the objections seems to be that, because "underutilized" could be used subjectively, that must necessarily mean that it's being used subjectively here. Even a cursory review of the organizations that focus on this topic shows that this is not the case. The designation is a well established one, particularly in NGO's focused on agricultural efforts to alleviate poverty (some of which are listed in the lead article). At least two UN agencies have underutilized crops as a central focus. I agree that the main article is underwhelming. I'd be willing to spend some time and effort filling it in a bit. Waitak ( talk) 01:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Waitak ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. In spite of the nominator's claim, it is straightforward to ascertain if a crop is considered underutilized. The topic is well studied; Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. If the nominator could provide some members of the category that are not supposed to be there it would be quite surprising. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well, right off the top, Black-eyed pea and Rutabaga both give the impression of being widely cultivated and I don't see any WP:RS in the article suggesting that they can be defined as "under-utilized." Did I miss something? While Sorghum might have other uses as a fuel feed stock, its article says it's one of the most important cereal crops in the world. Jerusalem artichoke is described in its lede as "cultivated widely across the temperate zone." In 2007, the world produced 1,875,018 metric tons of Flax. Perennial sunflower indulges in unsourced WP:CRYSTAL claims for its great untapped potential, but the article still points out that "Globally, sunflowers are the fourth most important oil crop." This is just a sampling. Are you surprised yet? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Not really. For example, the introductory chapter of the book Biology and Chemistry of Jeruslaem Artichoke is entitled "An Underutilized Resource". A scientific article Black-Eyed Peas Go to Mars? discusses how black-eyed peas are underutilized (details). Sorghum "probably has more underdeveloped and underutilized genetic potential than any other major food crop." I'm sure the other crops also have such sources. The thing to understand from an agricultural scientist's point of view is that extent of cultivation is not the sole metric of deciding that a crop is underutilized. One also must consider its potential. Abductive ( reasoning) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• This is a very interesting discussion. At this point, what I would like to know (coming full circle) is whether these assessments are considered "objective", i.e. are they widely/generally accepted and not contested? Or are they merely the views of one or more individuals that aren't necessarily widely accepted? Cgingold ( talk) 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'm not certain that every member of the category is uncontested, but there are bound to be some that are backed up by reliable secondary sources. That should be enough to keep this category. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note the previous discussion which closed as no consensus. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment/question. I had a random look at 10 of the articles in the category, and not a single one mentioned that the crop was classified as an "underutilized crop". This seems like a perfect example of something that could be categorized but should not be—not only is the main article anemic and unreferenced, so too apparently are most of the articles' inclusion in the category. If these uncited inclusions are removed by me from the category, what will happen? Will other users try to put the articles back in the category when the inclusion is unreferenced? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• I would be inclined to find some sources before undoing your edits. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete and maybe listify. Underutilized by what definition? Is this only for one application like fuel production? Is this a worldwide prospective or a position in a single country. Is it underutilized in every country? With a list you can explain some of this. I do believe that cotton is an underutilized crop in the US Southwest. But that is because we don't have the water needed to cultivate it. I see that cannabis is in the category so that says that even with laws controlling its use so that it can not be sold or grown in many areas it is still underutilized? Can anyone explain why opium poppy is not here? Clearly we could be planting and harvesting more of this vital crop. So saying something is underutilized without explaining why is also problematic. I think all of this has the effect of making inclusion somewhat subjective. Just reading the intro for the main article you have Neglected and underutilized crops are plant species that are used traditionally for their food, fibre, fodder, oil or medicinal properties, but have yet to be adopted by large-scale agriculturalists. They may have the potential to contribute to food security, nutrition, health, income generation and environmental services. For a variety of reasons, some economic and some cultural, they have been neglected or underutilized. I think the key phrase there could be yet to be adopted by large-scale agriculturalists. Nothing says that it is even possible to make better use of the crop. If you can't make better use of the crop then how is it utilized? What about plants that due to the habitat can't be grown on a large scale? Yea, they are underutilized, but they really can't be utilized any more. So this category really serves little purpose without an extensive explanation. It has already been pointed out that the articles lack the extensive and detailed explanations that would allow there inclusion here. Another issue, which category should be smaller? This one or Category:Overutilized crops? So are we really attempting to classify by including most plants? In the end this category casues more problems then it can possibally solve. Vegaswikian ( talk) 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Your question "Is this a worldwide prospective or a position in a single country?" brings to mind something I asked myself when I came across this interview with a principal scientist at the Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture in India. In "Commercialization of underutilized fruits" we find a list of underutilized fruits in the world's second most populous nation. But are we to add Avocado to this category on that basis? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Very persuasive commentary, VW - the phrase tour de force comes to mind... I'm ready to say Delete and listify. Cgingold ( talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify per above discussion. Beagel ( talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at 26 July. Courcelles ( talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories seem way too excessive, especially since popular ballets could easily be in 100s of categories if one started listing other years and other companies. They also are already all listed on list pages anyway, such as List of New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory. Thus I propose they all be deleted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support deletion - I could not agree more, these are really excessive and should perhaps be converted to a multi-part List article. However, it looks like none of the sub-categories have been properly tagged as yet, and they should be included in this CFD for deletion along with the parent cat. Cgingold ( talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support deletion - Four Bagatelles is in 4 or 5 of these and not one is IMO defining. Occuli ( talk) 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am the poor fool who created these categories and have no objection to their being deleted — provided that one of the Wikipedia editors who supports doing so is prepared to convert them into the suggested multi-part list article. Ben Lyon covered the waterfront; I cover City Ballet and keeping up with their ever-expanding repertory takes all the time I can devote to Wiki. As to a ballet showing up in 100s of categories, that might happen for a half dozen ballets — if there were fifty or a hundred editors writing about ballet (which is not the case). — Robert Greer ( talk) 02:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose deletion – The categories within Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season (i.e., Category:New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory through Category:New York City Ballet 2010 Winter repertory) are scarcely frivolous. Each provides a direct list of the ballets performed during a given season by NYCB without further maintenance — and consequent opportunity for error. As nobody is putting their hand up when asked who wants to convert these categories into an article (or series of articles) containing the same information in list form, I think this category (and its contents) should remain unperturbed unless and until some kind soul does so. (Strikethrough added to avoid giving the appearance of voting twice.) — Robert Greer ( talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Robertgreer makes a very good point. These categories do appear to serve a purpose and it seems to me, that deleting them only to create a series of new list articles with the same information would be creating work unnecessarily. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The lists already seem to be there, as I noted. I'm not sure what else would need to be done. But how do they serve ANY purpose? The argument that "noone else is working on it" is invalid, as that doesn't take away from the fact that these categories are specific to a single company (of which there are many), and beyond that are tagged for each year (look at, say, video games which often have multiple releases across different years, yet they only have one year category). And really, to restate it differently, why should the NYC Ballet be special enough to warrant these? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 02:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, if all you are going to do is swoop in and comment negatively in response to anyway who opposes the deletion, what is the point of this? It seems to be me you are determined to 'get rid' of these categories and will stamp all over any opposing point of view. I oppose the deletion, because of the prestige of the ballet company concerned and because I think this is a helpful way of breaking up what is a very extensive repertoire. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

To 'anyone'? Two people have opposed and I made one comment about one of them (though granted referenced the other one). My main reason for commenting was that you didn't clarify what was meant by "do appear to serve a purpose". (And incidently, I apologize for not actually tagging the subcats, but I can't figure out how to get their pages to link to this one now that it's three days later) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 13:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I can show you how to tag those sub-categories, Melodia. As for Crazy-dancing's remarks, s/he is way out of line to reproach you for engaging in debate and defending your position. That is exactly the sort of thing that goes on here at CFD, day in and day out. It tells me that s/he must be completely unfamiliar with this process -- and with the sorts of issues that need to be considered when it comes to evaluating a category or set of categories. Cgingold ( talk) 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, I don't know who you think you are to accuse me of being 'way out of line'. I simply added my name as opposing the delete and don't appreciate it when someone seems to pounce on me for doing so, with a comment that I perceive to be quite rude. There is defending your own position and then there is attacking someone elses, so I am perfectly entitled to respond without being accused of being 'out of line'. So if you would like to step off the soap box your majesty... Crazy-dancing ( talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

<Methinks he doth protest too much> Your remarks went well beyond merely responding: "if all you are going to do is swoop in and comment negatively" and "will stamp all over any opposing point of view" are both uncalled for and, yes -- browbeating like that is out of line. You might want to apologize and retract those remarks so we can all move on. Cgingold ( talk) 22:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok, I hope done right. Incidentally, I think the fact that every single of of these except the last two being valid links without the 'category; marker may speak for itself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I take it you're referring to the List articles that that correspond to the categories? Btw, there's one slight detail you overlooked: before stating your rationale you should specify what you're proposing -- in this case, deletion -- as CFDs are also used for merging and renaming categories. Cgingold ( talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps as a compromise, condense the categories into years rather than seasons???? Crazy-dancing ( talk) 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe all of the articles are already listed in Category:New York City Ballet repertory, which is as far as it should go. It's possible that somebody might even challenge that category, but my sense is that it would probably survive such a challenge, given the NYCB's status as a premiere ballet company. Cgingold ( talk) 22:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Mmmm, well, I hate to go afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] but for example, looking at operas, there's nothing like these categories, even the rep on popular operas like La Traviata or Carmen, for instance. Though taking a look at the ballet articles as a whole they seem (and I apologize for using the term, but it fit) like one big ball of cruft as a whole. Where other projects have taken great pains to condense topics into more broad singular ones and only keep truly notable individual articles, the ballet articles just seem to keep bloating. I mean, just look at pages like Swan Lake (Martins) or Barber Violin Concerto (ballet) or Valse Triste (ballet). Yes, I know that 'there's no hurry' and so forth, and perhaps they can be expanded into articles that actually are useful, but for now they all seem somewhat indiscriminate. Forgive the side rant here, and I mean no animosity toward the large amount of work that Robert Greer and others are doing, but I just can't help but wonder, if ballets were a popular topic (like say video games or TV shows) if the number of pages would be far smaller (and ballet being an 'art' has nothing to do with it either, before anyone tries to throw the highbrow card). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 00:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I suppose you do have to question the notability of the individual ballet productions. For example, I could similarly create a mound of articles listing every production ever performed by the Royal Ballet, but I choose to discriminate based on how 'popular' a production has been. Looking at some of the productions listed in these categories, I have to admit there are a number of them that are not notable (in my opinion). Yes, they are performed by a notable company and may be by notable choreographers, but are the ballets themselves notable? Does a one-off pas de deux created for 10 nights of a touring season really fit alongside a production of the Nutcracker that has been licensed to ballet companies around the world for example? Just trying to look at things differently... I guess if I was to create a category for the Royal Ballet's repertory, I wouldn't necessarily create articles about every ballet, I would concentrate on the ones that are particularly well known or are identified as being one of the companies 'signature' ballets, such as Ashton's Ondine or MacMillan's Manon or Mayerling???? Crazy-dancing ( talk) 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

As to whether these categories serve any purpose, should someone want to know which ballets were danced by New York City Ballet in a given season, this is where they can find the information without further ado (nor is this information available from the City Ballet website.)

Without these categories they would have to copy and paste the underlying data from the relevant NYCB list of that season's repertory into Google docs. or Excel, sort by column, eliminate duplicate titles and the names of dancers in principal rôles.

This is also the work necessary to create self-standing lists to replace said categories, and my implicit offer to support deletion of these categories still stands, provided one of the three of you who proposes deletion; Melodia Chaconne, Cgingold, Occuli; volunteers to do the work (i.e. you break it, you bought it!)

For my part, I have to enter the casting for NYCB 2010 Spring repertory and the second week of NYCB 2010 Summer Saratoga Springs repertory, both repertory and casting, as well as the just-announced repertory for their 2011 Winter repertory and 2011 Spring repertory (it might be worth noting that NYCB is the largest ballet company in the US and dances the largest rep. of any company in the world.) — Robert Greer ( talk) 15:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't see what "you can't find it elsewhere" has to do with appropriateness on WP. In fact, that should be an agument against it. And why are the lists that already exist not sufficient? What new lists would have to be created? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 16:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Is it inappropriate that Wikipedia have a list of the ballets danced in a given season by the largest ballet company in the United States? Is it inappropriate that Wikipedia have a list of the ballets danced in a given season by the ballet company with the largest repertory in the world?

The lists that exist (which have long since been ruled worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia) are chronological, day by day, week by week, season by season, year by year, with principal casting including literally last-minute changes (I attend fairly often, and my friends SMS me of cast changes announced on the bulletin board in the lobby or by slips of paper in the program or on the house speaker just before the curtain goes up.)

Someone consulting Wikipedia for an answer to the simple question, "What ballets did City Ballet dance in the Winter of 2009?", would not find the answer without the presence of Category:New York City Ballet 2009 Winter repertory.

Unless, that is, that you are volunteering to construct such a series of lists to replace the categories you propose deleting.

To argue (1) that "you can't find it elsewhere" has nothing "to do with appropriateness on WP" and then claim (2) that "that [it] should be an agument [sic] against it" is utterly illogical; it also gets the matter backwards.

Information that is available on other websites is that which needs to justify its presence on Wikipedia (far too many Wiki articles are copy-and-paste jobs from other websites — perish forbid that somebody should set foot in a library or make use of some other print source! — re-written just enough to avoid being tagged as obvious copyright violations.)

Information that is not available online is, unless proven otherwise, more valuable by virtue of its scarcity if nought else. And the question, "What ballets did NYCB dance in the Winter of 2009?", is as basic to ballet as, "Which teams played in the 2009 World Series?", is to baseball. — Robert Greer ( talk) 16:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

And yet, New York Yankees doesn't have a category for every year they were in the World Series. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Nor do they need one, as they defeat the same AL teams every year; NYCB has over four hundred ballets in their rep. and obviously do not dance every ballet every year — or even every decade.

The reason that Wikipedia has guidelines rather than rules (other than that thou shalt not infringe thine neighbour's copyright) is that the structure of a set of related entries and their related categories needs to be determined by the content rather than fit into a Procrustrean bed of rules. — Robert Greer ( talk) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Robert, you are -- understandably -- focused on the very particular subject that you care so much about, to the exclusion of other concerns. The functionality of the Category system, on the other hand, is much bigger than any individual subject or editor -- and that requires a larger, higher-order perspective. You deserve a thorough explanation of the problem, so please see my response to DGG below, which I hope will at least help you to understand the crux of the issue. Cgingold ( talk) 13:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep all Both lists and categories as navigational devices are good, if someone is willing to maintain them and if there is sufficient material to be worth the trouble. It's clear that there is sufficient material. Rather than thinking this section of the encyclopedia "cruft", I think its a model of the detail we ought to have--and perhaps the categories are also. I don;t think it's disproportionate, and I can not really see the point of the objection. The temptation to reduce the coverage of what does not interest you as an individual is something that needs to be fought against, or we'd have very little left. There's about half of Wikipedia that I would never see the occasion to consult,and I deal with what seems to be the enormous excess there by not consulting it, so it doesn't actually bother me as a reader, and when I cannot help encountering it as an admin I just assume that other people's concerns are (almost) as valuable as my own. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Nice to see you back at CFD, DGG (even if we disagree on this one -- though I think you may change your mind). My objections to this set of categories have nothing at all to do with any supposed lack of interest (much less antipathy) in/for the subject -- and everything to do with proper use of Wikipedia's category system. These categories are a variety of performer-by-performance categorization which, as I'm sure know you, are routinely deleted. And the reason for that is very simple: it results in an explosion of category clutter at the bottom of the page. (There's nothing Procrustean about it).

To illustrate the problem, just take a look at two articles chosen at random from Category:New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory: Prodigal Son (ballet) is already listed in five of these categories, as well as in Category:New York City Ballet repertory, and Chaconne (ballet) is listed in six of these categories (plus Category:New York City Ballet repertory). The problem will only worsen over time as the number of these categories expands year by year. And if we were to allow these categories, how could we turn down equivalent sets of categories for any of the other leading ballet companies in the world?? We could easily see dozens of categories like these cluttering up the bottom of all too many ballet articles. As well-intended as these categories surely are, the road to category hell is paved with good intentions. I'm really very sorry, but we truly have no choice but to nip this in the bud. Cgingold ( talk) 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Exactly. And just because noone happens to be working on it now, someone who happens to really like the Kirov Ballet and the Royal Ballet (or whatever) could easily justify adding these categories similarly. Not to mention adding rep in earlier years. The category system is simply not best used this way. And again, the information can EASILY be put into a list, and again, I'm trying to figure out why, say, List of New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory doesn't cover it. Looking at it differently, imagine if even three or four of the top orchestras were done similarly, and putting Category:2008 Berlin Philharmonic repertory for each piece they preformed that year, and then doing it for other years...then adding more orchestras. No no, it's just ridiculous and would be category clutter of the worst kind. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support deletion - as was said, this is not about deleting information (but bear in mind, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), this is about the misuse of categories - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. For the same reason that films aren't categorized by film festival appearances and musicians aren't categorized by concert appearances, performances should not be categorized by venues performed at, since one could add countless venue/series categories. This type of information has a place in Wikipedia, but in the form of List articles. See also Wikipedia:Categories vs lists and Wikipedia:Listcruft. -- Vossanova ^o< 15:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

In fact this is about deleting information, there being a difference between information and data; information is organized data.

If every single category on Wikipedia were deleted there would be no loss of data — every article would still exist — but there would be enormous loss of information.

Deleting these ballet categories will also result in loss of information, specifically the answer to the question, "What ballets did NYCB dance at Saratoga Springs the summer of 2008?" (and this is a Ballet 101 question.) Ditto winter, ditto spring, ditto 2009, 2010 and — next — 2011.

The existing articles do not answer this (these) question(s), nor can you find this information by searching either City Ballet's website or via Google.

Unless, that is, you or Melodia Chaconne, Cgingold or Occuli|, is prepared to take it upon themslves to create a series of lists:

that preserve the information that the categories contain. Now, which of the four of you will it be?

Or perhaps you could share the work and each create five. — Robert Greer ( talk) 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You still haven't answered why the existing lists aren't sufficient. Seriously Robert, I don't quite understand why you seem to think that every little tiny nugget about ballet should be WP. I mean, now I see you adding Ballet Project to composers who never wrote a note of ballet music in their life (like Jean Sibelius) just because some of their music happened to be adapted to it. Not related here, but the general fact that you seem to want to throw away any standard of guidelines on WP, and are somewhat able to get away with it because so few people care about ballet (at least here). It's...baffling really. And no, it's not on any of us to create the articles just because there shouldn't be categories. I'm certainly not about to. And again, why is NYC ballet rep so damn important? Again I'll use the example of the Berlin Philharmonic, which clearly doesn't have any such info anywhere (and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and so on, but it's still a point). The fact that they preformed Symphony X by Composer Y in 2009 is really pretty indiscriminate, and the same thing applies here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I have to take issue with the suggestion that "so few people care about ballet". - Just because the pool of people contributing to ballet articles is very small, does not mean that there is not a lot of interest in the ballet resources that exist on WP. As Wikipedia is primarily a resources for people who are looking for information, the number of people providing that information is not really indicative of the subjects popularity. I'm sure if we had usage statistics, some of the ballet articles would prove to be very popular. The way I see it, if just one person can provide extensive and accurate information about a highly notable subject, fantastic, because on the flip side you could have 100 people all working to the same guidelines, but not really contributing anything of value. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 13:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I have answered why the existing lists are insufficient but will do so again.

The existing lists are chronological, and a ballet is usually danced several times in a given season.

The most basic question a Wikipedia user might ask about ballet is, "Which balllets did Company X dance in year Y?""

Internet users who are not particularly proficiernt with computers would need to print out the chronological list and cross off the repetitions.

Computers have not required this of their users since the days of punched cards and neither should Wikipedia.

Without 19 of the 21 categories you propose to delete, this is what they would have to do, so this is not a "little tiny nugget".

As to adding {{WikiProject Ballet}} templates to the talk pages for "composers who never wrote a note of ballet music", I have been doing this since my first days on Wikipedia,

There are numerous WikProject templates on many of the pages,. and nobody has ever complained because such a template asserts only that the page is of interest to the project in question.

Please note that I do not place {{Ballet}} templates at the bottom of articles about such composers precisely because they do not meaningfully relate to the ballet world (Stravinsky does.)

As you yourself wrote, it is "[n]ot related here", so your bringing it up can be viewed — charitably — as a tacit acknowledgement of the weakness of your arguments.

New York City Ballet is neither more nor less important to the ballet world than the New York Yankees are to baseball (see above.)

Nor is the comparison with the Berlin Philharmonic is particularly apt.

Ballet companies are organized along and perform on entirely different lines than orchestras (or opera or film production companies) and their coverage on Wikipedia should reflect those differences.

The Berlin Philharmonic might well benefit from more detailed coverage, but as they do not perform often in the English-speaking world are not likely to receive it, at least not on English Wikipedia.

"The fact that they preformed sic Symphony X by Composer Y in 2009 is" precisely what an Internet-based encyclopedia can record that a print-based reference book cannot.

This is the last I will write on the matter as I am going on vacation and will not return until the end of August (see below.) — Robert Greer ( talk) 00:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Suggestion As it seems there is little support for keeping these categories, may I suggest that we at least seek to replace them with one category - Category:New York City Ballet repertoire. This would be a rather large category, but it would at least be some sort of compromise. I do think it serves a purpose to have such a category and if I had the time spare, I would certainly consider doing this for the Royal Ballet's repertoire also. And in response to the comparison with Berlin Phil, I see no reason why their rep shouldn't be categorised in the same way, especially if, as is the case with ballet companies, the repertoire is unique to, or part of the 'indentity' of the group. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 13:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strongly oppose deletion – I appreciate the spirit in which this compromise is proposed, but such a master category already exists.

The primary issue is whether Wikipedia should provide the average user with simple answers to the most basic questions about the largest ballet company in the US, which just happens to have the largest number of ballets in its repertory of any company in the world.

A subsidiary question is whether this should be provided in the current form of sub-categories, or whether they should be converted to lists — and, if so, which of the proponents of deleting the categories, Vossanova, Melodia Chaconne, Cgingold or Occuli is volunteering to do so.

This is a purely mechanical task, and if the presence of these categories so offends their sensibilities, I should think that at least one of them would step forward and offer to do so in the name of peace and prosperity.

However, the burden of proof remains upon those who propose deleting the lists and I do not think that what is written even approaches concensus.

This is the last I will write on the matter (see above.) — Robert Greer ( talk) 00:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Because we support deletion does not obligate us to write lists for you. You are looking at this from a fan/expert's point of view, and I am looking at this from a neutral, purpose-of-Wikipedia point of view. The subject matter is irrelevant to me. Wikipedia should not be used as a sole repository of information. It should be a reference/compilation of other sources of information. More importantly, information should not be stored in categories - all categories should be obvious derivatives of the subject material. If you feel lists are important, I would recommend finding an external website containing the information, and link to it from WP. I realize you're not going to respond but wanted to make this clear in the discussion. -- Vossanova ^o< 16:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Participants in The Great Escape to Category:Participants in the Great Escape from Stalag Luft III

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is more than one "Great Escape" that persons could have been a participant of: for instance, the Maze Prison escape is known by this name. See Great Escape for other uses. I suggest being more specific and naming the prison that was escaped from. The "main article" is at Stalag_Luft_III#The_"Great_Escape". Capitalization of "the" is unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom to avoid confusion.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 06:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. (Qualifies as speedy rename criterion C2C.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Hockey in Northern Ireland to Category:Field hockey in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Standardise- other cats are Field hockey... or Ice hockey.. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 09:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. (Qualifies as speedy rename criterion C2C.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Hockey clubs in Northern Ireland to Category:Field hockey clubs in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Standardise- other cats are Field hockey... or Ice hockey.. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 09:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:United States Federalist Party to Category:Federalist Party

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Federalist Party. The name is unambiguous—there is no Federalist Party (disambiguation). There is Federal Party (disambiguation), but that is not the same thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 00:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• rename for the stated reasons. I think at some point there was a push to preface various political parties with their country names even when disamiguation was not needed. Not necesary then or now. Hmains ( talk) 15:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Ethanol to Category:Alcohols

Nominator's rationale: Merge. OC small. I think that the two articles here are better included in Category:Alcohols. That would seem to better facilitate navigation. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment:It is little bit more complicated as we have also Category:Bioethanol and Category:Ethanol fuel. Beagel ( talk) 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• ... and Category:Bioalcohols, Category:Bioethanol producers, Category:Cellulosic ethanol, etc... every permutation. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• keep as the parent, directly or indirectly, of 100 or so articles, and given the current interest in the subject of ethanol, surely WP can afford to have this category, serving the intended purpose of categories: ease of navigation for the reader. 76.105.54.215 ( talk) 02:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep why do we need so many different Ethyl Alcohol categories? Merge them all to Category:Ethanol . Perfectly reasonable to subcategorize alcohols because of the various ethyl alcohol articles. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 04:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Cancelled nuclear power stations in the United States per the close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_6#Category:Former_nuclear_power_stations_projects. As in that one, I've accepted the argument that "projects" is unnecessary if the contents are about plants which never got started, and I've used the dominant spelling in the "Cancelled" category tree.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Former nuclear power stations projects in the United States to Category:Proposed nuclear power stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Virtually all of the articles use proposed in the introductions so that is likely the better term to use in the category. Secondly there is no need to include projects in the title since all of the articles are about plants and not projects Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. You're saying that former nuclear power stations projects which did not go forward should be now be categorised as proposed nuclear power stations? For example, plans for the Bodega Bay Nuclear Power Plant were abandoned in 1964, but you are now wanting to categorise it as a proposed nuclear power plant? Doesn't make sense to me. Proposed plants are usually considered to be ones that are currently on the drawing board. Johnfos ( talk) 08:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Johnfos on this. The proposed rename is in fact an existing category that is quite properly being used for proposed future projects. However, the current name of this category is badly flawed -- therefore, Rename to Category:Cancelled nuclear power station projects in the United States. Cgingold ( talk) 13:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Category:Cancelled nuclear power station projects in the United States would work for me. Keep in mind that the master category Category:Former nuclear power stations projects is on its way to being renamed unanimously to Category:Proposed nuclear power stations here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Actually, I just registered my opposition along with a rename proposal consistent with what I proposed here. Cgingold ( talk) 13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Actually the US spelling is Category:Canceled nuclear power station projects in the United States. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted to 26 July. I'm going to relist this one, because there's no clear idea of what should be done, though rough consensus to do something. Courcelles ( talk) 20:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Decommissioned nuclear power stations in the United States to Category:Former nuclear power stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Well, there is probably some difference between decommissioned and former. But does having this category with it's one parent really help navigation? If someone wants to propose the reverse merge that could also be an option. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Following on from my comment immediately above, I think a lot of confusion would arise if this change were made. Johnfos ( talk) 08:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment/Discussion/Questions - Well, I just took a good look thru the super-cat, Category:Nuclear power stations, and it turns out that we have a whole variety of sub-cats for "formerly-operating" nuclear power stations. Adding the 2 US sub-cats to the 2 other similar sub-cats I found in Category:Nuclear power stations by status gives us a grand total of 4 such sub-cats:

1. Category:Nuclear power stations with closed reactors
2. Category:Nuclear power stations with mothballed reactors
3. Category:Former nuclear power stations in the United States
4. Category:Decommissioned nuclear power stations in the United States.

Now I am quite familiar with the term "Decommissioned nuclear power plant", which is I believe the standard term for such things here in the States. But I'm not sure the other terms are well-defined:

• Question 1: What is meant by the term "Former nuclear power station"? Is it possible to be a "Former nuclear power station" without being, in fact, a "Decommissioned nuclear power station"? [Addendum: It occurs to me that there is in fact a significant period of time involved in the process of decommissioning a nuclear plant. So a power station could be "turned off" and no longer generating electricity for a number of years before it is fully decommissioned.]
• Question 2: What is meant by the term "mothballed reactor"? Is this the same as or different from being "Decommissioned"?
• Question 3: What is meant by the term "closed reactor"? How is this different from either "mothballed" or "Decommissioned"?
• Question 4: Are Cats 1 & 2 being used for power stations that are now closed -- or for multi-reactor power stations that are still operating, but with one or more reactors closed? (Or perhaps for both?)

It seems to me we that need to agree on consistent and clearly-defined terms for all of these categories. Cgingold ( talk) 14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There are a tremendous number of closed or cancelled plants and this is leading to some confusion. My initial thought is that when we consider nuclear power stations, it is useful to distinguish between:

• those which were proposed but no construction was ever started.
• those which were proposed and partially completed.
• those which were completed but were never commercially operated.
• completed power stations still in operation.
• completed power stations which operated but have been closed.
• proposed nuclear power stations, which may or may not operate in the future.

Hope this breakdown may provide some sort of guidance. Johnfos ( talk) 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, if you look at Category:Power stations by condition it only covers two types past operating which is not included. That raises a question of should that simply be upmerged, which is where I'm leaning since condition is ambiguous especially in this context, or expanded. If a class of plants is not defined at this top level, maybe we don't need it. Mothballed is a class that I don't think is covered in your definitions. It is a plant that was in operation, but currently is not and is being maintained so that it can be restarted. Mohave Power Station was in this status for a while, albeit not made clear in the article. So I guess the question is can be use a small subset to classify these or do we need very detailed categories to cover every difference no matter how minor? I would like to see fewer categories and would like to avoid classifications that only apply to one type of plant when ever possible. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Wisely or not (likely not) I started a separate CfD for just the closed/mothballed issue here. I may withdraw it especially in light of Vegaswikian's recent explanation of the term mothballed, taken to mean put in storage but possibly reopened later. Makes sense, I guess: mothballs. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I just withdrew the other CfD. Unhelpful to have two and I just didn't understand "mothballed." If retained, it obviously needs a description. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

As another complication, mothballed can also be used to mean partially built and awaiting completion. Out here this applies to other buildings like hospitals where they build extra floors in the main construction but other then the outside shell and floors, they don't do any interior work. This allows them to later finish a floor or part of a floor as growth in demand creates a need for more space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian ( talk • contribs) 21:29, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Try not to get too distracted by mothballed reactors, as this is a very small part of what is happening. I suggest categorising by what is going on with the overall plant rather than individual reactors. Is the plant currently operating? Or has it been cancelled before construction was started? Has it been closed? These are central questions. Johnfos ( talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Well the simple questions might be built or not built and operable. The question becomes what categories should be used to cover this. Let's not get into a rail station discussion of disused, former, defunct or a few other terms. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Nuclear waste to Category:Radioactive waste

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Appears to be a splinter category. Again there is a redirect to the proposed target lead article from the name used in the current category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Once again, created by Mac/Nopetro with no apparent concern that a viable populated category already exists. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom - I believe "Radioactive waste" is the preferred term as it encompasses all such waste, not just that generated by nuclear reactors. Cgingold ( talk) 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Feel free to renominate.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Babycare to Category:Child care

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Current category is wide open, as the articles indicate, to wide interpretations as to usage. Upmerge to the category where the main article for this category redirects. Cleanup should be considered either while the discussion is ongoing or after the merge. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• ? there is no article in Category:Babycare that even looks like a main article. In any case, baby or infant care is very different from non-infant child care as most any parent will know. Hmains ( talk) 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Babycare is a redirect to childcare. Childcare says it covers ages 0-8. So the main article in this area seems to clearly state that it covers both. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Absolutely Not - Despite the superficial resemblance of the terms, baby or infant care is utterly and completely distinct from "child care", which is really another term for daycare. I dare say that category should be renamed. I would suggest withdrawing & closing out this proposal. Cgingold ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Better yet, close this out and I will nominate both cats for renaming so there will be no chance of confusion in the future. Cgingold ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Traction motor manufacturers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has 2 articles after almost 2 years. That kind of tells me that the list is a better choice for navigation. If you look at the list, many of the companies are very diversified and it is not likely that this particular product is notable for them. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and per MISCAT:NOPETRO. Neither article even mentions 'traction motor'. Occuli ( talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Hockey clubs in Adelaide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: now empty-couple of entries moved to Australian field hockey clubs; name incorrect as well, should have included the word field Crusoe8181 ( talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles ( talk) 02:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Contingencies funds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After removing a few articles that simply mentioned a contingency fund, this seems to meet the requirement for OCAT. In the whole, I'm not convinced that we are going to find many articles specifically on contingency funds. If kept, rename to Category:Contingency funds. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Thiomorpholines to all parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small categroy at this time with one entry besides the main article. Recreate if needed in the future. Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom for now and recreate in the future if more members can be found.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 06:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia featured animations to Category:Featured animations

Nominator's rationale: The word "Wikipedia" is redundant and it the category is of use to readers and editors - i.e. it is as content and fro the WP project. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Parent cat is Category:Wikipedia featured pictures, grandparent is Category:Wikipedia featured content. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

One of the other parent cats is Category:Featured content. That category is of use to readers and secondarily to editors. It seems that there is no demand for a category of this type for the project. To reiterate - it is a content category. The, ah, category "geneology" that you describe are all project categories and are in the parallel pages that editors use as opposed to the content that the readers use. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Question: Many other categories for featured content all start with the word "Wikipedia", e.g. Category:Wikipedia featured articles. Are you proposing to remove the word "Wikipedia" from all of them? If not, why just this one? — Keenan Pepper 22:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Answer: This is the only category of this type that I want to rename. The "Wikipedia" prefix (after the "Category:" namespace) indicates that it is for the project, rather than content for readers. You will note that the categories with names starting with "Wikipedia" are used for administration and are of absolutely no interest to readers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge all. I think I'm going to have to run this one manually. Courcelles ( talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Paul McCartney classical albums to Category:Paul McCartney albums and Category:Classical albums

Propose merging Category:Charlotte Church classical albums to Category:Charlotte Church albums and Category:Classical albums

Nominator's rationale: Similar to this nomination and this one, this is a triple intersection.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support This kind of triple intersection is a dangerous idea. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support the intended nom (ie 'merge' rather than rename to 2 different things). Occuli ( talk) 00:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Whoops. Thanks for the catch. Fixed now.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 09:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Non-article WikiProject Engineering pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Non-article Engineering pages to Category:Non-article engineering pages

Nominator's rationale: caps convention. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Alternate suggestion Category:Non-article WikiProject Engineering pages since this is a WikiProject Engineering category, and not an engineering category. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 04:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Non-article WikiProject Engineering pages per anon since the entries and the parent cat is within the Engineering Wikiproject.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 06:37, 15 July 2010 (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.