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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Note that the nominator
User:MFIreland is removing this category from the
Paddy Finucane article. Similar to previous disruptive behaviour from this user.
Kernel Saunters (
talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep per previous comments. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This will almost inevitably remain a small category, because the Republic was neutral, and any flying aces must have enlisted in foreign forces, usually British. However, it remains a worthwhile category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (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:Scientists in stochastics
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. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Object -- I am not sure that the target is a recognised English word, and even if it is, it is too obscure.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Suggestions I suggest a rename, but to an English phrase, Stochastics researchers or at least "Researchers in stochastics". The in is iidomatic there, but not for the current title DGG (
talk ) 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose in favour of
Category:Researchers in stochastics. The category is populated with people (presumably researchers), not stochastics subjects. Agree with DGG, "Researchers in stochastics" is idiomatic for "Researchers who research the the field of in stochastics". "Scientists in stochastics" is not what is said. I guess it would correspond to "Scientists who do science in the field of stochastics". People don't say that. Scientists research. Stage performers do science. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:23, 21 January 2011 (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:Former London and South Western railway stations
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.
Courcelles 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge per nom. --
EdJogg (
talk) 13:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC) NB -- not watching herereply
Speedy merge per nom. (I think the lower case R might be an old typo of mine!)
Geof Sheppard (
talk) 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Can someone close this? Speedy mergeSimply south...
.. 15:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge (not reverse merge). The target has the correct capitalisation.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace
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:
Result was withdrawn (non-admin close)
Simply south....
.. 19:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Despite the {{
Empty category}} tag on this category I propose to delete it, because there is no template which sorts into this category, so it is doomed to remain forever empty.
Please note that there was a notice on this category page saying "Pages are added to this category with {{
R from other template}} or a variant thereof.", but since that was not true (and in addition, that template is itself being nominated for deletion), I removed that sentence.
Debresser (
talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose – It is true; you really should check these things. Pages are added to this category if they are not in the template namespace. If the categorising is not working, then it can be easily fixed, but that is not a reason to delete this category. This category is useful for grouping cross-namespace redirects. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I checked, and I am a template editor myself. You might have approached me about this on my talkpage, if you are so sure of it. So far you have not shown that I am wrong here.
Debresser (
talk) 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
It used to be true and I apologise for assuming that it still was. I have responded to your comment on my talk page. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, I noticed. I think either way we will work something out here.
Debresser (
talk) 16:20, 19 January 2011 (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:Mammals of French Guinana
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:
Result was delete (Non-admin close)
Simply south....
.. 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Guiana misspelled Guinana.
Fama Clamosa (
talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
NM renaming, I corrected the only article in this category. Just delete the misspelled category. --
Fama Clamosa (
talk) 15:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge or delete, as misspelling.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Deleted; the category was already empty.
Ucucha 17:01, 21 January 2011 (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:Mercury mines
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is your concern about confusion for mines on Mercury in Science Fiction novels?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose Entirely unnecessary, unless evidence of mining on Mercury is provided. --
Mattinbgn (
talk) 09:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The disambiguator is unnecessary. We do not even mine on the moon, let alone other planets. Clearly one does not mine in a Roman god either.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support to distinguish from mines for Hermes, the Greco-Roman god. (dedicated, named after, with a temple, etc)
65.93.13.210 (
talk) 17:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Clarification: I googled "Hermes mine" and there is a mining company in Australia and mine in Colorado that uses the name "Hermes". Everything else is about
Hermès Paris. Can you point me to any examples of mines dedicated to Hermes, either inside our outside Wikipedia?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think Peter's right. No disambiguation is necessary as there can be no reasonable confusion.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose Disambiguation should, in principle, only be used when needed, and it's not needed here. (Maybe in a few hundred years' time it might, but
WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply(!), and anyway, wouldn't that need to be
Category:Mines on Mercury?) The only possible exception would be for standardisation, but as we don't have
Category:Gold (element) mines,
Category:Copper (element) mines, etc., that reason doesn't apply either. --
RFBailey (
talk) 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose per previous comments. Disambiguation needs common sense. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Prefer "oppose" over "support", but suggest serious consideration of the following: Rename to
Category:Cinnabar mines. It is not mercury that is mined in any of the three articles categories, but the mineral
Cinnabar. The cateogry is in the tree
Category:Mines by mineral. Mercury is not a mineral in the strictly correct usage of the word. Cinnabar is the mineral, and is the only economically significant mineral containing mercury. Looking at
Category:Mines by mineral, it should be divided by mineral mine, not by element derived from the minerals mined. Dividing mines by element is a little high-schoolish. Mines are built around the mining of a mineral, or an ore (an ore may contain multiple minerals). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:40, 21 January 2011 (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:D'Wort people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match article
Luxemburger Wort.
D'Wort redirects there and is a former name of the paper.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:57, 18 January 2011 (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:Mercury in fiction
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename.
Dana boomer (
talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Mercury" is ambiguous, and I don't think that the category name here ("in fiction") is enough to disambiguate it.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Question: I looked on Amazon and a Hope Larson (not the one with the
namesake article) has a novel called "Mercury" but alchemy seems to be the defining theme not the element. Everything else about the element seemed to be non-fiction. Are there fictional books about the element that I'm missing?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Mercury (element) in fiction or Quicksilver in fiction, and Mercury (god) in fiction are likely to be confused with this.
65.93.13.210 (
talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to correspond to title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (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:Nostalgia Critic films
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The category exists to tag articles reviewed by a particular critic. We do not create categories for critic's reviews; it is unworkable due to the sheer number of reviews, and also for the potential for appearing to highlight particular critics. Ckatzchatspy 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Pointless category, unless, say, we were trying to promote the website... -
SummerPhD (
talk) 04:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete (speedy?) Due to promotion/advertising issue. Lugnuts (
talk) 07:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete: Clearly promotional and non-defining.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The films so tagged are not defined by their having been reviewed by a particular critic.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (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:IATSE
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.
Background: As the cat creator, I have no objection to spelling out the name. I used the acronym to avoid the frequent renames of the article between the spelling of "employees" versus "employes" and because I didn't think the common name was clear. Employes (1 E) seems to be the technical name, but Employees (2 Es) is widely used including on the website. The common name this organization is refered to in the industry is neither IATSE nor the spelled out name (however you spell it!) but "The IA".
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Expand abbreviation -- This is standard WP practice for categories, except a few very well known ones. The point is that unless you are in the industry, the abbreviation is gobbledegook.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (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:Preserved machines
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This was the subject of a previous
discussion that started as a rename and ended with no consensus after the nominator change to a delete. After cleaning this up and removing some categories that are included from other categories we are left with 3 members. Two of these are already listed in the parent
Category:Historic preservation by way of
Category:Rail transport preservation. The other category is already better included in
Category:Historic preservation by the better organized
Category:Ships preserved in museums which avoids the ambiguously named current category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a legitimate parent category, which still has three members. I suspect that there ought to further subcategories, for example splitting stationery steam engines from locomotives. I do not think HMS Warrior or SS Great Britain are "preserved in museums": they are much too big to get inside a building with anything else. Alternatively upmerge to
Category:Historic preservation (without a category redirect).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Your basic assumption that all museums have only indoor spaces is not correct. There are many types of outdoor museums including
open-air museums.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Are ships and rolling stock really machines? While the engine of a ship appears to be a
machine, the ship does not. With no power source, most rolling stock is not a machine. Box cars clearly do not fit, but reefers do have a compressor which is a machine but do not make the whole vehicle a machine, right?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Note that the nominator
User:MFIreland is removing this category from the
Paddy Finucane article. Similar to previous disruptive behaviour from this user.
Kernel Saunters (
talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep per previous comments. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This will almost inevitably remain a small category, because the Republic was neutral, and any flying aces must have enlisted in foreign forces, usually British. However, it remains a worthwhile category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (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:Scientists in stochastics
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. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Object -- I am not sure that the target is a recognised English word, and even if it is, it is too obscure.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Suggestions I suggest a rename, but to an English phrase, Stochastics researchers or at least "Researchers in stochastics". The in is iidomatic there, but not for the current title DGG (
talk ) 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose in favour of
Category:Researchers in stochastics. The category is populated with people (presumably researchers), not stochastics subjects. Agree with DGG, "Researchers in stochastics" is idiomatic for "Researchers who research the the field of in stochastics". "Scientists in stochastics" is not what is said. I guess it would correspond to "Scientists who do science in the field of stochastics". People don't say that. Scientists research. Stage performers do science. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:23, 21 January 2011 (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:Former London and South Western railway stations
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.
Courcelles 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge per nom. --
EdJogg (
talk) 13:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC) NB -- not watching herereply
Speedy merge per nom. (I think the lower case R might be an old typo of mine!)
Geof Sheppard (
talk) 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Can someone close this? Speedy mergeSimply south...
.. 15:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge (not reverse merge). The target has the correct capitalisation.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace
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:
Result was withdrawn (non-admin close)
Simply south....
.. 19:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Despite the {{
Empty category}} tag on this category I propose to delete it, because there is no template which sorts into this category, so it is doomed to remain forever empty.
Please note that there was a notice on this category page saying "Pages are added to this category with {{
R from other template}} or a variant thereof.", but since that was not true (and in addition, that template is itself being nominated for deletion), I removed that sentence.
Debresser (
talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose – It is true; you really should check these things. Pages are added to this category if they are not in the template namespace. If the categorising is not working, then it can be easily fixed, but that is not a reason to delete this category. This category is useful for grouping cross-namespace redirects. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I checked, and I am a template editor myself. You might have approached me about this on my talkpage, if you are so sure of it. So far you have not shown that I am wrong here.
Debresser (
talk) 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
It used to be true and I apologise for assuming that it still was. I have responded to your comment on my talk page. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, I noticed. I think either way we will work something out here.
Debresser (
talk) 16:20, 19 January 2011 (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:Mammals of French Guinana
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:
Result was delete (Non-admin close)
Simply south....
.. 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Guiana misspelled Guinana.
Fama Clamosa (
talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
NM renaming, I corrected the only article in this category. Just delete the misspelled category. --
Fama Clamosa (
talk) 15:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge or delete, as misspelling.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Deleted; the category was already empty.
Ucucha 17:01, 21 January 2011 (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:Mercury mines
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is your concern about confusion for mines on Mercury in Science Fiction novels?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose Entirely unnecessary, unless evidence of mining on Mercury is provided. --
Mattinbgn (
talk) 09:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The disambiguator is unnecessary. We do not even mine on the moon, let alone other planets. Clearly one does not mine in a Roman god either.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support to distinguish from mines for Hermes, the Greco-Roman god. (dedicated, named after, with a temple, etc)
65.93.13.210 (
talk) 17:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Clarification: I googled "Hermes mine" and there is a mining company in Australia and mine in Colorado that uses the name "Hermes". Everything else is about
Hermès Paris. Can you point me to any examples of mines dedicated to Hermes, either inside our outside Wikipedia?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think Peter's right. No disambiguation is necessary as there can be no reasonable confusion.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose Disambiguation should, in principle, only be used when needed, and it's not needed here. (Maybe in a few hundred years' time it might, but
WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply(!), and anyway, wouldn't that need to be
Category:Mines on Mercury?) The only possible exception would be for standardisation, but as we don't have
Category:Gold (element) mines,
Category:Copper (element) mines, etc., that reason doesn't apply either. --
RFBailey (
talk) 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose per previous comments. Disambiguation needs common sense. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Prefer "oppose" over "support", but suggest serious consideration of the following: Rename to
Category:Cinnabar mines. It is not mercury that is mined in any of the three articles categories, but the mineral
Cinnabar. The cateogry is in the tree
Category:Mines by mineral. Mercury is not a mineral in the strictly correct usage of the word. Cinnabar is the mineral, and is the only economically significant mineral containing mercury. Looking at
Category:Mines by mineral, it should be divided by mineral mine, not by element derived from the minerals mined. Dividing mines by element is a little high-schoolish. Mines are built around the mining of a mineral, or an ore (an ore may contain multiple minerals). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:40, 21 January 2011 (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:D'Wort people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match article
Luxemburger Wort.
D'Wort redirects there and is a former name of the paper.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:57, 18 January 2011 (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:Mercury in fiction
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename.
Dana boomer (
talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Mercury" is ambiguous, and I don't think that the category name here ("in fiction") is enough to disambiguate it.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Question: I looked on Amazon and a Hope Larson (not the one with the
namesake article) has a novel called "Mercury" but alchemy seems to be the defining theme not the element. Everything else about the element seemed to be non-fiction. Are there fictional books about the element that I'm missing?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Mercury (element) in fiction or Quicksilver in fiction, and Mercury (god) in fiction are likely to be confused with this.
65.93.13.210 (
talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to correspond to title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (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:Nostalgia Critic films
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.
Dana boomer (
talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The category exists to tag articles reviewed by a particular critic. We do not create categories for critic's reviews; it is unworkable due to the sheer number of reviews, and also for the potential for appearing to highlight particular critics. Ckatzchatspy 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Pointless category, unless, say, we were trying to promote the website... -
SummerPhD (
talk) 04:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete (speedy?) Due to promotion/advertising issue. Lugnuts (
talk) 07:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete: Clearly promotional and non-defining.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The films so tagged are not defined by their having been reviewed by a particular critic.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (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:IATSE
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.
Background: As the cat creator, I have no objection to spelling out the name. I used the acronym to avoid the frequent renames of the article between the spelling of "employees" versus "employes" and because I didn't think the common name was clear. Employes (1 E) seems to be the technical name, but Employees (2 Es) is widely used including on the website. The common name this organization is refered to in the industry is neither IATSE nor the spelled out name (however you spell it!) but "The IA".
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Expand abbreviation -- This is standard WP practice for categories, except a few very well known ones. The point is that unless you are in the industry, the abbreviation is gobbledegook.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (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:Preserved machines
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This was the subject of a previous
discussion that started as a rename and ended with no consensus after the nominator change to a delete. After cleaning this up and removing some categories that are included from other categories we are left with 3 members. Two of these are already listed in the parent
Category:Historic preservation by way of
Category:Rail transport preservation. The other category is already better included in
Category:Historic preservation by the better organized
Category:Ships preserved in museums which avoids the ambiguously named current category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a legitimate parent category, which still has three members. I suspect that there ought to further subcategories, for example splitting stationery steam engines from locomotives. I do not think HMS Warrior or SS Great Britain are "preserved in museums": they are much too big to get inside a building with anything else. Alternatively upmerge to
Category:Historic preservation (without a category redirect).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Your basic assumption that all museums have only indoor spaces is not correct. There are many types of outdoor museums including
open-air museums.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Are ships and rolling stock really machines? While the engine of a ship appears to be a
machine, the ship does not. With no power source, most rolling stock is not a machine. Box cars clearly do not fit, but reefers do have a compressor which is a machine but do not make the whole vehicle a machine, right?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (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.