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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not sure that this is defining. While there is a main article, I'm not sure that it is notable itself. Best I can gather is that this is a specific classification for airports in India. We generally don't break out airports by the type of customs facilities that they operate. Based on the articles, it clearly is not defining for the airports since they don't mention it.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. We don't even categorize airports for being international airports, and surely that is more defining than being a customs airport. There is no
Category:International airports.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
At least in theory, international airports are airports where passengers can arrive in one country after having departed from another. Customs airports are airports where goods (but not necessarily people) can arrive from another country and clear customs in the airport.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:47, 9 November 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:Pickup terminology
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 (category is now empty after sole article was deleted).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge I don't think there's sufficient material to warrant the isolation of the terminology in a separate category.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Only contains one article, which is currently nominated for deletion.
Kaldari (
talk) 21:21, 8 November 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:Loves Opera
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:Merge I'm assuming that every user who thinks that Opera is "by far the best web browser" uses Opera. However, the distinction between users who love Opera and those who just prefer Opera is not significant enough to warrant separate user categories.
Pichpich (
talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge Loving a web browser isn't conducive to making an encyclopedia. Using one might be (e.g. someone can test whether or not something displays properly or discuss add-ons that are useful for editing and collaboration), but liking one definitely not. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 18:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge no indication that it's a wikipedian category, or that this isn't about the fat woman singing at the end.
70.24.248.23 (
talk) 05:02, 10 November 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:Lists of shopping malls in India
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as all of the above and nom
Curb Chain (
talk) 00:09, 9 November 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:Notable herds of American bison
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The parent category and main article are
Category:Bison/
Bison. "Notable" is redundant to include in a category name. I suggest just simplifying the entire name to "Bison herds".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. This really does seem like the ideal name, and "notable" is of course implied by being in this encyclopedia, to begin with.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename clearer shorter name
Curb Chain (
talk) 00:08, 9 November 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:Melbourne cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This was suggested by Mattinbgn at
a recent CfD and I agree with him. Simply "Melbourne cricketers" is ambiguous because it could easily be mistaken as "cricketers from Melbourne" and there are also two new teams called Melbourne, the
Melbourne Renegades and the
Melbourne Stars, which will soon begin to play and could add further confusion. Lastly, "cricketers" is necessary in the title (as opposed to just "players") because the Melbourne Cricket Club has a wide variety of sports under its banner.
Jenks24 (
talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Note: I attempted to notify the creator of this category,
YellowMonkey, but his talk page is (understandably) fully protected.
Jenks24 (
talk) 04:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom; obviously need to disambiguate. Harriastalk 07:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Happy to support the nom, assuming the norm for these cats to be "Foo Cricket Club cricketers" - sounds to me a bit tautological, and I'd prefer "Foo Cricket Club players", which could also handily contrast with "Foo Cricket Club officials" (or whatever) but if that's existing consensus, so be it. --
Dweller (
talk) 10:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
As Hack pointed out at the previous CfD, it's not necessarily tautological because, quoting from
our article, "As well as cricket, the MCC is also an umbrella organisation for other sports – golf, lacrosse, baseball, tennis, lawn bowls, real tennis, shooting, field hockey and squash."
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Gotcha. And I really should have read the nom more carefully - you explained it there. Sorry. --
Dweller (
talk) 11:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I think there would continue to be confusion as to whether Melbourne Renegades cricketers were also Melbourne cricketers, as the latter would imply they were from a city, rather than a particular club, which is what we're trying to indicate. --
Dweller (
talk) 23:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
There are no categories for cricketers from a city and if there were it would be "Cricketers from Melbourne" for the reasons you specify.
Cjc13 (
talk) 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, but how is the casual reader to know that? To someone who has no knowledge of this particular category system, "Cricketers from Melbourne" and "Melbourne cricketers" could easily mean the same thing.
Jenks24 (
talk) 09:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The current name is consistent with similar categories.
Cjc13 (
talk) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The current name is useless, as it fails to accurately describe what it's supposed to describe. It's not a Category of cricketers who come from the city of Melbourne, which is what the "similar" Categories do. --
Dweller (
talk) 20:57, 13 November 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:Apartments in the United States
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. I believe that this the articles included here are mostly about buildings and not simple apartments. So the rename would better match the contents in the category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps where you live, but the overwhelming majority of apartment buildings I see are under 10 stories tall.-
choster (
talk) 05:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
True, I was thinking the notable ones we have articles on.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I should have written: This should not be done alone. This is only part of an entire category tree of
Category:ApartmentsHmains (
talk) 05:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
rename per nom and all the others also.
Hmains (
talk) 04:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Some of the articles included appear to be about individual apartments so everything should not be renamed without checking. Feel free to add categories that should be renamed to this nomination.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
While
Category:Apartments may be correctly named,
Category:Apartments in the United States is about buildings. Many apartment buildings are simply called apartments. But there are a few notable apartment articles around. So for now start cleaning these up and see what's left.
Apartment does make clear that this can be an individual unit or a building, properly called an
apartment building.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Now I understand. Thanks for patience.
Hmains (
talk) 19:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
English as a language has many flaws, especially the ones caused by those who speak it.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per nom as this category for the US only contains apartment buildings, not individual apartments.
Hmains (
talk) 19:40, 13 November 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:delete.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not sure that this is defining. While there is a main article, I'm not sure that it is notable itself. Best I can gather is that this is a specific classification for airports in India. We generally don't break out airports by the type of customs facilities that they operate. Based on the articles, it clearly is not defining for the airports since they don't mention it.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. We don't even categorize airports for being international airports, and surely that is more defining than being a customs airport. There is no
Category:International airports.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
At least in theory, international airports are airports where passengers can arrive in one country after having departed from another. Customs airports are airports where goods (but not necessarily people) can arrive from another country and clear customs in the airport.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:47, 9 November 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:Pickup terminology
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 (category is now empty after sole article was deleted).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge I don't think there's sufficient material to warrant the isolation of the terminology in a separate category.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Only contains one article, which is currently nominated for deletion.
Kaldari (
talk) 21:21, 8 November 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:Loves Opera
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:Merge I'm assuming that every user who thinks that Opera is "by far the best web browser" uses Opera. However, the distinction between users who love Opera and those who just prefer Opera is not significant enough to warrant separate user categories.
Pichpich (
talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge Loving a web browser isn't conducive to making an encyclopedia. Using one might be (e.g. someone can test whether or not something displays properly or discuss add-ons that are useful for editing and collaboration), but liking one definitely not. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 18:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge no indication that it's a wikipedian category, or that this isn't about the fat woman singing at the end.
70.24.248.23 (
talk) 05:02, 10 November 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:Lists of shopping malls in India
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as all of the above and nom
Curb Chain (
talk) 00:09, 9 November 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:Notable herds of American bison
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The parent category and main article are
Category:Bison/
Bison. "Notable" is redundant to include in a category name. I suggest just simplifying the entire name to "Bison herds".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. This really does seem like the ideal name, and "notable" is of course implied by being in this encyclopedia, to begin with.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename clearer shorter name
Curb Chain (
talk) 00:08, 9 November 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:Melbourne cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This was suggested by Mattinbgn at
a recent CfD and I agree with him. Simply "Melbourne cricketers" is ambiguous because it could easily be mistaken as "cricketers from Melbourne" and there are also two new teams called Melbourne, the
Melbourne Renegades and the
Melbourne Stars, which will soon begin to play and could add further confusion. Lastly, "cricketers" is necessary in the title (as opposed to just "players") because the Melbourne Cricket Club has a wide variety of sports under its banner.
Jenks24 (
talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Note: I attempted to notify the creator of this category,
YellowMonkey, but his talk page is (understandably) fully protected.
Jenks24 (
talk) 04:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom; obviously need to disambiguate. Harriastalk 07:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Happy to support the nom, assuming the norm for these cats to be "Foo Cricket Club cricketers" - sounds to me a bit tautological, and I'd prefer "Foo Cricket Club players", which could also handily contrast with "Foo Cricket Club officials" (or whatever) but if that's existing consensus, so be it. --
Dweller (
talk) 10:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
As Hack pointed out at the previous CfD, it's not necessarily tautological because, quoting from
our article, "As well as cricket, the MCC is also an umbrella organisation for other sports – golf, lacrosse, baseball, tennis, lawn bowls, real tennis, shooting, field hockey and squash."
Jenks24 (
talk) 10:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Gotcha. And I really should have read the nom more carefully - you explained it there. Sorry. --
Dweller (
talk) 11:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I think there would continue to be confusion as to whether Melbourne Renegades cricketers were also Melbourne cricketers, as the latter would imply they were from a city, rather than a particular club, which is what we're trying to indicate. --
Dweller (
talk) 23:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
There are no categories for cricketers from a city and if there were it would be "Cricketers from Melbourne" for the reasons you specify.
Cjc13 (
talk) 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, but how is the casual reader to know that? To someone who has no knowledge of this particular category system, "Cricketers from Melbourne" and "Melbourne cricketers" could easily mean the same thing.
Jenks24 (
talk) 09:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The current name is consistent with similar categories.
Cjc13 (
talk) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The current name is useless, as it fails to accurately describe what it's supposed to describe. It's not a Category of cricketers who come from the city of Melbourne, which is what the "similar" Categories do. --
Dweller (
talk) 20:57, 13 November 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:Apartments in the United States
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. I believe that this the articles included here are mostly about buildings and not simple apartments. So the rename would better match the contents in the category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps where you live, but the overwhelming majority of apartment buildings I see are under 10 stories tall.-
choster (
talk) 05:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
True, I was thinking the notable ones we have articles on.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I should have written: This should not be done alone. This is only part of an entire category tree of
Category:ApartmentsHmains (
talk) 05:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
rename per nom and all the others also.
Hmains (
talk) 04:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Some of the articles included appear to be about individual apartments so everything should not be renamed without checking. Feel free to add categories that should be renamed to this nomination.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
While
Category:Apartments may be correctly named,
Category:Apartments in the United States is about buildings. Many apartment buildings are simply called apartments. But there are a few notable apartment articles around. So for now start cleaning these up and see what's left.
Apartment does make clear that this can be an individual unit or a building, properly called an
apartment building.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Now I understand. Thanks for patience.
Hmains (
talk) 19:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
English as a language has many flaws, especially the ones caused by those who speak it.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per nom as this category for the US only contains apartment buildings, not individual apartments.
Hmains (
talk) 19:40, 13 November 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.