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:self-close: it appears that the categories were speedily deleted as
G5s.Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I believe this level of subdivision takes the athlete-politicians category scheme too far. If we assume that categorizing someone as an "athlete-politician" is not overcategorization (and this is a debatable point), surely we don't want to take it one step further into possible overcategorization territory. (See also the related nomination below.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep: Category:Sportsmen-politicians The category has been nominated for deletion at least 2 times before — the arguments/persons in the previous discussions indicate that there is sufficient interest in the category. (But it might be nice if there was a personal user setting, so that a user can hide a category that one does not like to see on the screen. Perhaps it would ruin my mama's day (or mine) if one's eyes had to be bothered by reading category:porn actresses-turned-politicians.)--
Arvein (
talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.reply
None of these particular categories have been nominated before. Only
Category:Athlete-politicians has been discussed before, and I'm not proposing that it be deleted. These are by-sport subdivisions of that category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: There must be a limit to everything. But no one has made a good case for where the sub-categorization must stop. In Iran, champion wrestlers get elected to political office. In Norway, I do not know about any wrestlers who became Norway-champions, and then were elected to political office; maybe there is one, maybe more. Yes, this in not only my wikipedia or Good Ol’factory's wikipedia. (Prediction: one day the category:athlete-politician will be obsolete, when wikipedia will revamp its search engine so that one can search category:athlete + category:politician. But until then I will have to deal with my sockpuppet investigation due to critical edits to Norway-related topics
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav#14_September_2011.)--
Arvein (
talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.reply
Delete This is the type of intersection that is supposed to be limited to those for whom both their athletics career and policical career are fully notable. This requires close scrutiny, and thus should not be unduly subdivided.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as
CSD G5, also remember Category:Politician/wrestlers.
Geschichte (
talk) 19:17, 18 September 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.
Athlete-politicians
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 Fooian.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There have been some vigorous no-consensus discussions over whether the "athlete-politicians" category tree should be kept or deleted:
here and
here. As long as the tree is going to exist by default, we should at least get things right.
(1) In the category tree,
Category:Athletes is not used because of its ambiguity, but in most countries, "FOOian athletes" means FOOians who compete in
athletics, ie, track and field and related sports: see subcategories of
Category:Athletes by nationality. So for most countries we should not be using "athletes" to mean "sports competitors in general". "Sportsperson–politicians" therefore seems to be more correct than "athlete–politicians", since most of the individuals in this tree are not track and field athletes. I haven't suggested renaming the American category since "athlete-politicians" is the terminology that is generally used in the USA.
(2) Some of these use "FOOian ..." and some use "... from FOO". All should be consistent.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Not rename as suggested per your suggestion. If you had suggested Sportsperson-politician from Nation, then I expect that you would have my full support. This is my "
expert opinion" after having subcategorized the majority of the articles that previously were in the
athlete-politician category. (On my talk page I have tried to "open a subdiscussion to explain why".)--
Arvein (
talk) 09:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.reply
Both the politicians category and the sportspeople categories use "FOOian BARs", as do the parent categories
Category:FOOian people and I don't see any good reason to depart from that standard here. And frankly I don't think creating a bunch of subcategories makes anyone an "expert" in anything.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
do not rename as nominated Names should be 'Fooian...' something or another to match the sibling categories for each country, such as
Category:French sportspeopleHmains (
talk) 19:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I think you were head-faked somehow. The nomination is to change the format to "FOOian ...", so that they will match the parent categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:41, 20 September 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:Maidstone
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. Current name is ambiguous. Is this for the borough or the district or the county town? Add to that the other uses on
Maidstone (disambiguation)? I'll let those in the know decide if there is a better name then the one proposed. The links in the category imply that this is for either the district or the borough.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The borough is the same thing as the district - see
Borough status in the United Kingdom. The category is piped but appears to be for the borough - there seems to be a general problem with the Kent categories (and probably other places) as they seem to be based on the districts/boroughs/city but copy the main town/city article title. The whole structure may need a rethink.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Opposing the category rename to Maidstone (district) for as long as the article is
Maidstone (borough). There should be some name conformity. A closing admin could consider changing both the article and category name.
gidonb (
talk) 04:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)reply
REname to
Category:Maidstone (borough). The district is a borough, which (I think) consists of the town of
Maidstone and various nearby villages. Articles relating to the town will fit here, and the present category can if necessary be re-created for town-related categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
---Closing Admin - please relist for discussion of this suggestion.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I would support any meaningful consistent name.
gidonb (
talk) 01:39, 3 October 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:Rotana
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:Speedy rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename Rotana is ambiguous and in fact
Rotana is a disambiguation page. The intended scope of the category is clearly
Rotana Group.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
As creator of the category, no objection. In fact Rotana Group is more accurate as a category
werldwayd (
talk) 22:40, 13 September 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:Novels set in Falkirk
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:Upmerge.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge Falkirk is a very small town so there's no need for such fine-grained classification.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. If we get a large number of novels set in Felkirk that have articles later on we can recreate the category, but there is no reason for this category with just one item.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:46, 18 September 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:Electoral divisions in the United Kingdom
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment When I created this category, I deliberately chose not to use "constituencies" because local government electoral divisions are not called that; "electoral divisions" was intended to encompass both "parliamentary constituencies" and "council wards". But there currently seems to be only one article about wards, so I guess "constituencies" is a good enough cover term.
jnestorius(
talk) 10:16, 14 September 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:Film soundtrack record labels
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. —
ξxplicit 07:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Since most major record labels will release soundtracks along with albums by their signed artists, I don't see how categorizing them as a "film soundtrack record label" is defining to the label.
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
On second thought: If their are labels that release exclusively film soundtracks, then this category should just be purged of inclusions such as
Columbia Records and
Polydor Records. Just because a label releases soundtracks doesn't mean they should be placed into this category. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think it was originaly created exclusivly for record labels that only released soundtracks. Lugnuts (
talk) 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Include heading in category that makes the only-soundtracks issue explicit. Of course this may or may not help since most people never check category headings and some go balistic on you when you try to enforce them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nearly every major label releases film soundtracks, and that's what this category is filled with. There are very few soundtrack-only labels, and I don't see a need for a category exclusive to such things.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Hardly a defining feature. In any case not for most included labels.
gidonb (
talk) 01:14, 1 October 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:Goobi
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete The category is named after a piece of software but there's no reason to think that it will ever contain any article other than
Goobi.
Pichpich (
talk) 12:37, 13 September 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:Isulan
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one member; I'm not sure what else could be added. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 13 September 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:Scrubs: Interns episodes
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not need categories for series episodes where the individual episodes are not notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:53, 18 September 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.
American architects of FOOian descent
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:Speedy merge C2C.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. This is a follow up from
this discussion, where there was general agreement that these types of categories for architects should be upmerged. These are the categories that weren't formally nominated with the previous nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge There no reason to make such a narrow category. The articles will have the American architects category and the descent category. It doesn't need to be any more clear.
Curb Chain (
talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge I don't find the intersection meaningful. It's not like architects of French descent share the common habit of designing their buildings so that they look like baguettes. :-)
Pichpich (
talk) 12:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge – at least until we have the baguette school of architecture.
Occuli (
talk) 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. As, I hope, an ultimate move to not devide people by ancestry by occupation.
Mayumashu (
talk) 17:47, 13 September 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.
Ambassadors of Colombia
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:Speedy rename C2C/C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a bit of a test nomination to see if this general pattern could be developed for most of the ambassadors categories. I can think of three reasons to prefer the proposed format:
(1) Accuracy. Technically, one does not have to be a FOOian national to be an ambassador of FOO. A Venezuelan national could be selected to act as an ambassador of Colombia. This is particularly relevant in the history of some countries prior to the 20th century, where they commonly employed non-nationals as ambassadors.
A few years ago, this format was consistently applied to the subcategories of
Category:Ambassadors of Russia via CFD, and there was some discussion of it being tested out in CFD for other countries, but it never did happen.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Just a quick comment on (1). Maybe it's just me but when I read "Colombian ambassador", I understand that this means "ambassador of Colombia" and not "ambassador who happens to be Colombian". Arguments (2) and (3) are more compelling.
Pichpich (
talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
That is very true, and I agree—but I think you will find cases where users have removed such categories from articles, arguing that the person in question was "not a FOOian citizen". So although you can get away with it, the change is partly to avoid such confusion.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename – "Colombian ambassador" is ambiguous: one could have a Colombian who was the ambassador of Venezuela to Brazil. And arguments (2) and (3) are also compelling.
Occuli (
talk) 12:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename - First of all I am the one who has created like 80% of those categories, and from the begginig I felt weird about them, but because the categories that were already there did follow the "Category:Colombian ambassador to" format I just went with it, it wasnt until I had created the "Category:Colombian ambassadors to Russia" and it was subsequently renamed "Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Russia" that I realized that another format would work better, but I didnt want to go edit each and every one of those pages and reformat them myself when there are other methods (like this) to do so. One thing though, I really would like this to become the general pattern for ambassador categories but I couldnt help but notice this then and now that in the already generalized Category:Ambassadors to Russia page, the only category that, how shall I say this, gets "special" exclusion or treatment is the "Category:United States ambassadors to Russia, which just goes against the rest of categories.
mijotoba (
talk) 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename – makes sense.
Agathoclea (
talk) 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename, with caveat - be aware that for some countries, using the demonym will be problematic (Dominica/Dom. Rep; DRCongo/RoCongo; PRChina/RoChina).
Grutness...wha? 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The proposal is to move away from using any demonym, to an "Ambassadors of BAR to FOO" format. No BARians or FOOians at all.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Oops - apologies. Misunderstood the nom :) Support.
Grutness...wha? 03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Question/comment/suggestion Should we leave category redirects behind? My hunch is that some of the Fooian ambassadors category will be mistakenly recreated.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:01, 14 September 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:self-close: it appears that the categories were speedily deleted as
G5s.Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I believe this level of subdivision takes the athlete-politicians category scheme too far. If we assume that categorizing someone as an "athlete-politician" is not overcategorization (and this is a debatable point), surely we don't want to take it one step further into possible overcategorization territory. (See also the related nomination below.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep: Category:Sportsmen-politicians The category has been nominated for deletion at least 2 times before — the arguments/persons in the previous discussions indicate that there is sufficient interest in the category. (But it might be nice if there was a personal user setting, so that a user can hide a category that one does not like to see on the screen. Perhaps it would ruin my mama's day (or mine) if one's eyes had to be bothered by reading category:porn actresses-turned-politicians.)--
Arvein (
talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.reply
None of these particular categories have been nominated before. Only
Category:Athlete-politicians has been discussed before, and I'm not proposing that it be deleted. These are by-sport subdivisions of that category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: There must be a limit to everything. But no one has made a good case for where the sub-categorization must stop. In Iran, champion wrestlers get elected to political office. In Norway, I do not know about any wrestlers who became Norway-champions, and then were elected to political office; maybe there is one, maybe more. Yes, this in not only my wikipedia or Good Ol’factory's wikipedia. (Prediction: one day the category:athlete-politician will be obsolete, when wikipedia will revamp its search engine so that one can search category:athlete + category:politician. But until then I will have to deal with my sockpuppet investigation due to critical edits to Norway-related topics
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav#14_September_2011.)--
Arvein (
talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.reply
Delete This is the type of intersection that is supposed to be limited to those for whom both their athletics career and policical career are fully notable. This requires close scrutiny, and thus should not be unduly subdivided.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as
CSD G5, also remember Category:Politician/wrestlers.
Geschichte (
talk) 19:17, 18 September 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.
Athlete-politicians
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 Fooian.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There have been some vigorous no-consensus discussions over whether the "athlete-politicians" category tree should be kept or deleted:
here and
here. As long as the tree is going to exist by default, we should at least get things right.
(1) In the category tree,
Category:Athletes is not used because of its ambiguity, but in most countries, "FOOian athletes" means FOOians who compete in
athletics, ie, track and field and related sports: see subcategories of
Category:Athletes by nationality. So for most countries we should not be using "athletes" to mean "sports competitors in general". "Sportsperson–politicians" therefore seems to be more correct than "athlete–politicians", since most of the individuals in this tree are not track and field athletes. I haven't suggested renaming the American category since "athlete-politicians" is the terminology that is generally used in the USA.
(2) Some of these use "FOOian ..." and some use "... from FOO". All should be consistent.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Not rename as suggested per your suggestion. If you had suggested Sportsperson-politician from Nation, then I expect that you would have my full support. This is my "
expert opinion" after having subcategorized the majority of the articles that previously were in the
athlete-politician category. (On my talk page I have tried to "open a subdiscussion to explain why".)--
Arvein (
talk) 09:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.reply
Both the politicians category and the sportspeople categories use "FOOian BARs", as do the parent categories
Category:FOOian people and I don't see any good reason to depart from that standard here. And frankly I don't think creating a bunch of subcategories makes anyone an "expert" in anything.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
do not rename as nominated Names should be 'Fooian...' something or another to match the sibling categories for each country, such as
Category:French sportspeopleHmains (
talk) 19:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I think you were head-faked somehow. The nomination is to change the format to "FOOian ...", so that they will match the parent categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:41, 20 September 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:Maidstone
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. Current name is ambiguous. Is this for the borough or the district or the county town? Add to that the other uses on
Maidstone (disambiguation)? I'll let those in the know decide if there is a better name then the one proposed. The links in the category imply that this is for either the district or the borough.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The borough is the same thing as the district - see
Borough status in the United Kingdom. The category is piped but appears to be for the borough - there seems to be a general problem with the Kent categories (and probably other places) as they seem to be based on the districts/boroughs/city but copy the main town/city article title. The whole structure may need a rethink.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Opposing the category rename to Maidstone (district) for as long as the article is
Maidstone (borough). There should be some name conformity. A closing admin could consider changing both the article and category name.
gidonb (
talk) 04:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)reply
REname to
Category:Maidstone (borough). The district is a borough, which (I think) consists of the town of
Maidstone and various nearby villages. Articles relating to the town will fit here, and the present category can if necessary be re-created for town-related categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
---Closing Admin - please relist for discussion of this suggestion.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I would support any meaningful consistent name.
gidonb (
talk) 01:39, 3 October 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:Rotana
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:Speedy rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename Rotana is ambiguous and in fact
Rotana is a disambiguation page. The intended scope of the category is clearly
Rotana Group.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
As creator of the category, no objection. In fact Rotana Group is more accurate as a category
werldwayd (
talk) 22:40, 13 September 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:Novels set in Falkirk
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:Upmerge.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge Falkirk is a very small town so there's no need for such fine-grained classification.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. If we get a large number of novels set in Felkirk that have articles later on we can recreate the category, but there is no reason for this category with just one item.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:46, 18 September 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:Electoral divisions in the United Kingdom
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment When I created this category, I deliberately chose not to use "constituencies" because local government electoral divisions are not called that; "electoral divisions" was intended to encompass both "parliamentary constituencies" and "council wards". But there currently seems to be only one article about wards, so I guess "constituencies" is a good enough cover term.
jnestorius(
talk) 10:16, 14 September 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:Film soundtrack record labels
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. —
ξxplicit 07:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Since most major record labels will release soundtracks along with albums by their signed artists, I don't see how categorizing them as a "film soundtrack record label" is defining to the label.
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
On second thought: If their are labels that release exclusively film soundtracks, then this category should just be purged of inclusions such as
Columbia Records and
Polydor Records. Just because a label releases soundtracks doesn't mean they should be placed into this category. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think it was originaly created exclusivly for record labels that only released soundtracks. Lugnuts (
talk) 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Include heading in category that makes the only-soundtracks issue explicit. Of course this may or may not help since most people never check category headings and some go balistic on you when you try to enforce them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nearly every major label releases film soundtracks, and that's what this category is filled with. There are very few soundtrack-only labels, and I don't see a need for a category exclusive to such things.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Hardly a defining feature. In any case not for most included labels.
gidonb (
talk) 01:14, 1 October 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:Goobi
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete The category is named after a piece of software but there's no reason to think that it will ever contain any article other than
Goobi.
Pichpich (
talk) 12:37, 13 September 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:Isulan
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one member; I'm not sure what else could be added. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 13 September 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:Scrubs: Interns episodes
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not need categories for series episodes where the individual episodes are not notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:53, 18 September 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.
American architects of FOOian descent
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:Speedy merge C2C.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. This is a follow up from
this discussion, where there was general agreement that these types of categories for architects should be upmerged. These are the categories that weren't formally nominated with the previous nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge There no reason to make such a narrow category. The articles will have the American architects category and the descent category. It doesn't need to be any more clear.
Curb Chain (
talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge I don't find the intersection meaningful. It's not like architects of French descent share the common habit of designing their buildings so that they look like baguettes. :-)
Pichpich (
talk) 12:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge – at least until we have the baguette school of architecture.
Occuli (
talk) 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. As, I hope, an ultimate move to not devide people by ancestry by occupation.
Mayumashu (
talk) 17:47, 13 September 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.
Ambassadors of Colombia
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:Speedy rename C2C/C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a bit of a test nomination to see if this general pattern could be developed for most of the ambassadors categories. I can think of three reasons to prefer the proposed format:
(1) Accuracy. Technically, one does not have to be a FOOian national to be an ambassador of FOO. A Venezuelan national could be selected to act as an ambassador of Colombia. This is particularly relevant in the history of some countries prior to the 20th century, where they commonly employed non-nationals as ambassadors.
A few years ago, this format was consistently applied to the subcategories of
Category:Ambassadors of Russia via CFD, and there was some discussion of it being tested out in CFD for other countries, but it never did happen.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Just a quick comment on (1). Maybe it's just me but when I read "Colombian ambassador", I understand that this means "ambassador of Colombia" and not "ambassador who happens to be Colombian". Arguments (2) and (3) are more compelling.
Pichpich (
talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
That is very true, and I agree—but I think you will find cases where users have removed such categories from articles, arguing that the person in question was "not a FOOian citizen". So although you can get away with it, the change is partly to avoid such confusion.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename – "Colombian ambassador" is ambiguous: one could have a Colombian who was the ambassador of Venezuela to Brazil. And arguments (2) and (3) are also compelling.
Occuli (
talk) 12:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename - First of all I am the one who has created like 80% of those categories, and from the begginig I felt weird about them, but because the categories that were already there did follow the "Category:Colombian ambassador to" format I just went with it, it wasnt until I had created the "Category:Colombian ambassadors to Russia" and it was subsequently renamed "Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Russia" that I realized that another format would work better, but I didnt want to go edit each and every one of those pages and reformat them myself when there are other methods (like this) to do so. One thing though, I really would like this to become the general pattern for ambassador categories but I couldnt help but notice this then and now that in the already generalized Category:Ambassadors to Russia page, the only category that, how shall I say this, gets "special" exclusion or treatment is the "Category:United States ambassadors to Russia, which just goes against the rest of categories.
mijotoba (
talk) 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename – makes sense.
Agathoclea (
talk) 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename, with caveat - be aware that for some countries, using the demonym will be problematic (Dominica/Dom. Rep; DRCongo/RoCongo; PRChina/RoChina).
Grutness...wha? 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The proposal is to move away from using any demonym, to an "Ambassadors of BAR to FOO" format. No BARians or FOOians at all.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Oops - apologies. Misunderstood the nom :) Support.
Grutness...wha? 03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Question/comment/suggestion Should we leave category redirects behind? My hunch is that some of the Fooian ambassadors category will be mistakenly recreated.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:01, 14 September 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.