Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2

Members of the Scottish Parliament

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 Option A. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming either:
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Both options replace the word "from" with "for". This conforms with both common and official usage (see this example), and clarifies that this is a category of MSPs by where they were elected. The current wording be read as including MSPs who had lived in the relevant constituencies, but represented somewhere entirely different. It matches two similar sets of changes for United Kingdom Members of Parliament: 1 and 2
Option 2 goes a little further by replacing "Foo constituencies" with "constituencies in Foo". This clarifies that the grouping is by geographical scope, rather than by whether the constituency includes "Foo" in its title.
I have no particular preference between the two options, but would like to get rid of that word "from". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Scotland has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • How useful are these categories anyway? eg is there a proper definition of what makes an "Aberdeen constituency"? Is it any constituency that includes some of the city of Aberdeen or Aberdeen city council area, even if most of the constituency is in a different council area? I think it would be more useful to have categories for members by electoral region, eg North East Scotland, Lothian, Glasgow etc. Then these categories would actually cover all of Scotland, and could also include MSPs elected on the additional member system. -- Vclaw ( talk) 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    It seems to me that these categories are important in grouping the political representatives of these cities.
    However, a set of similar categories by electoral region seems like a very good idea. These city categories could be subcats. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- Some time ago, some one started categorising UK (or predecessors) MPs for English constituencies by the county where the constituency was. Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies currently has 3 sub-cats for in that format by county; two in the format "Cumbria MPs" (presumably similar - rather than based on local origin); one for Liverpool constituencies and one each for two specific constituencies - Hackney and Cambridge University. Do we really want to go down the road of splitting the categories to this extent? It needs to be born in mind that some MPs sat for several constituencies in the course of their career. I make this point in relation to UK MPs, because the issue will be much larger with them than for a Scottish Parliament that is now a mere 13 years old. Every constituecny has an article that lists all the people who have represneted it. This is much more useful than a category, which will only place the people in alphabetic order. I therefore wonder whether the answer might not be fell the whole tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A - as creator, I had missed that the UK cats had been renamed "from" to "for", otherwise I would have followed the precedent. Really ought to have been a Speedy. In reply to Peterkingiron: these cats are part of the cat trees of each city, eg. if you look at the Edinburgh one (which is part of a large pattern, eg. see Category:Politicians from Cook County, Illinois, Category:Politicians from Chicago, Illinois, Category:Politicians from Dublin (city), etc, etc, etc), it contains sub-cats for councillors (incl Provosts), MPs and MSPs, and will also be populated with the Burgh Commissioners (MPs) for Edinburgh who sat in the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament, as and when we get round to working on that vast topic. In reply to Vclaw: I wholeheartedly agree that it would be "useful to have categories for members by electoral region, eg North East Scotland, Lothian, Glasgow etc.", so feel free! The existence of these 4 city cats does not preclude the creation of regional parent cats, of which these would be sub-cats. Not everything as Wikipedia has to be top-down. In fact, in my experience the best work is done at the micro-level, and overarching article topics, categories, lists, templates etc are often horrific messes that nobody ever seems to have the time to tackle. Eg, look at the huge number of FA articles that have "importance=low" on their WikiProject boxes, and then look at a huge and vastly important topic like English law, which is covered here at Wikipedia by an article that is really no more that a puffed-up, unloved stub (to the point that we really ought to be embarrassed). I digress. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 03:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
But how are those categories defined? Which constituencies do they include? What sources are you using? -- Vclaw ( talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Err... you want me to provide a "source" proving that Glasgow Kelvin is in Glasgow? I feel the urge to back away slowly. What next, do I have to provide a "source" proving that the Pope is a Catholic? In the great, historic conflict between good old fashioned common sense and the School of Making Things Harder Than They Really Are, I cannot help but feel that Wikipedia tends to prefer the latter philosophy.-- Mais oui! ( talk) 05:54, 4 November 2012 (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:Oil and gas companies of China

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It the moment, this category covers both—oil and gas companies. At the same time, more specific category:Oil companies of China. To avoid confusion, a factual split between these companies was carried out and at the moment the categories includes companies having natural gas operations while companies with oil operations are categorized in the category:Oil companies of China. Therefore, the category needs renaming. As an alternative to renaming, category:Oil companies of China may be merged back into this category. However, I think that we have enough Chinese companies to have two more specific categories instead of one more general category. Beagel ( talk) 19:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Answer. No, at the moment this proposal concerns Chinese category only. Maybe one day there would be need for the overall split but at the moment I do not think this is necessary. My proposal based also on the similar precedent some year ago when the proposal was to merge Category:Oil companies of South Korea back to Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea but the consensus was keep both categories with renaming Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea to Category:Natural gas companies of South Korea. Beagel ( talk) 13:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • comment most countries have too few company entries to be worth splitting between oil and natural gas, however pleasing that might be. Hmains ( talk) 20:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No view here but in many countries the same companies deal with both gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons. Many are multinationals. If this is implemented, the process should not be spread wider. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. AFAICS, the pattern is that prospecting for and extracting oil is largely done by the same companies as do the prospecting and extraction of oil. However, there is much less overlap in the distribution methods of the two products, so there tends to be a clearer division at the distribution level. It seems that the split leads to dual-categorisation of exploration and production companies, and I'm not persuaded that this is helpful. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose these two types of companies overlap so much we might as well have one category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (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 from EPs

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There's no need to distinguish which album type a redirect is. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support The difference between and EP and a full album is not something our redirect categories need to bother with. CMD ( talk) 21:41, 2 November 2012 (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:Live albums recorded in Canada

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) 00:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussion ( 1 and 2), these albums by recording location categories should only contain subcategories down to notable venues (e.g. Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios), not generic places. Since this has no subcategories of notable venues, there is no scheme to keep. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:11, 2 November 2012 (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:Albums by format

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) 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We've already deleted categories such as Albums released only digitally with the rationale that the format upon which an album is released is irrelevant and trivial for categorizing. I'm honestly a bit torn, but if we're going to do some formats, we should do all formats. Unless someone wants to get cracking on Category:Albums released on wax cylinder and Category:Albums released on Compact Disc, then we should delete this scheme.— Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: I am the creator of the parent category, but I didn't create the entire scheme myself. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per wise nomination. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom since the format upon which the music is released is not a defining characteristic, particularly in the era of multiple formats seemingly designed to extract money from the hapless consumer with "new" releases simply selling the purchaser something he already has in multiple previous formats. </rant> Bencherlite Talk 18:57, 5 November 2012 (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:Double albums

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) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unless we categorize albums by format (which we generally don't--see my other CfDs above), then this is a meaningless designation. Something may take two LPs and one CD, two CDs and three LPs, one continuous digital stream, etc. Some editions have a bonus disc, some are compact versions of three disc albums. The fact that a set of musical recordings takes up two or three pieces of a certain type of media is trivial. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Note There are subcategories of both of these which would also be included in the deletion. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep double I think this is a defining characteristic for albums. The Wall, for example, is defined because it is a double album and this is reflected in the lead of the article. Lots of critics make lists on the best double albums of all time. Not so sure on the triple album though. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Response I have no objection to the prospect of a list with clearly-defined criteria, but we'll still run into the same problem: X is a double album on vinyl but not Compact Disc, etc. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom who says, Unless we categorize albums by format (which we generally don't--see my other CfDs above), then this is a meaningless designation. The deletion of the category would not mean that a suitable article on the reasons, lengths and notable double albums wouldn't be useful. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP doesn't categorise albums by format, and we have Double album and List of double albums already which so there's no need to listify the contents. Bencherlite Talk 18:55, 5 November 2012 (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:Economists of innovation

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) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Speedy criteria C2C. The parent category ( Category:Economists by area of research) lists as Foo economists. Bob247 ( talk) 16:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, established category structure, and parent article Innovation economics. Robofish ( talk) 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- Innovation Economists are those that have or currently provide theoretical models or applied results in the Economics of Innovation.
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.

Chinese politicians by province

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) 00:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Procedural relisting. This is a procedural relisting of the most of the categories discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 26#Category:Gansu_politicians.
The nomination was a little unclear about the fact that it was proposed to rename more than one category, so while there was a consensus there to rename Category:Gansu politicians to Category:Politicians from Gansu, it is not clear that there was a consensus to rename the others. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Previous discussion relisted below:
Nominator's rationale: Please see below for "umbrella" reasons. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

There needs to be uniformity in the naming geographical subcategories of Category:Chinese politicians. I would like a general discussion on the issue, and, while as I explain below, I would prefer "Politicians from <province/city>," if the discussion results in "<Province/city> politicians," I will accept that; consistency is more important, regardless. I am planning on creating further geographic subcategories for the politicians category after this discussion results in a consensus, and we definitely need to decide on this before I can do that. (I am leaving Hong Kong and Macau off the discussion; those involve even more complicated category trees which I have insufficient expertise/confidence to tackle at the moment, and is probably better driven by Wikipedians with greater familiarity with those two SARs.)

Currently, the geographic subcategories that fall under Category:Chinese politicians are named in two different types. These are:

Under "Politicians from <province/city>":
Under "<Province> politicians":

A number of provinces/other provincial level entities never had such categories created either by me or anyone else, presumably due to the uncertainty due to the inconsistency in the category names. (Chongqing, Fujian, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jilin, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Tianjin, Tibet (although that may be another whole can of worms), Xinjiang, and Zhejiang.)

In my opinion, "Politicians from <province/city>" is a better formulation. It is less ambiguous and less POV. Further, while "<Province> politicians" may not sound awkward, I think "<City> politicians" begins to sound awkward -- there's something that doesn't quite feel right when you begin to talk about "Tianjin politicians" or "Chongqing politicians" (or even smaller divisions, as it may reasonably become necessary given the mass population that China has). (See also the Category:Politicians by city hierarchy.) But again, consistency is more important, and I'd be happy to abide whatever the consensus is. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Rename per nom. I think in general x from y is a better form for city and province level cates. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename it clears up whether these are politicians practicing in Gansu, or just being from it. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Also rename to the "from" form for others, to distinguish politicians hailing from a location, instead of practicing in a location. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 04:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename in all categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle but are we sure that all the people are categorised by the place they came from rather than the place they rule. WE may need separate trees by origin and by engagement. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I plan to be going through the tree once this discussion is over to make sure; however, there is precedent in also considering a person to be "from" a place where he/she gained prominence (which I disagree with, but there are clear examples all over Wikipedia in which that is done). I am planning on trying to place everyone in their birth provinces as much as possible. -- Nlu ( talk) 14:58, 4 November 2012 (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:Perth Waterfront

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 C2A. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The term is not a proper noun, so "waterfront" should not be capitalised. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:27, 2 November 2012 (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:Montenegro media stubs

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 category to Category:Mass media stubs and Category:Montenegro stubs; merge {{ Montenegro-film-director-stub}} to Category:Montenegrin people stubs; keep templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Insufficient article count. Keep template, but upmerge to Category:Mass media stubs and Category:Montenegro stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 11:54, 2 November 2012 (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:Australia media stubs

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) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use demonym. Dawynn ( talk) 11:47, 2 November 2012 (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:American gay-related television programs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is an entire tree for gay male media leading down to this, but I have no idea why. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is indeed part of a category tree under Category:Gay (male) media. If this particular category is to be merged, then it should be merged to both parents (i.e. Category:Gay-related television programs and Category:American LGBT-related television programs).
    However, the nominator's rationale offers no reason for merging this particular category when he thinks its parent is also a bad idea, so rather than correct this merge I will oppose it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Suppport as per nominator's rationale. Nymf hideliho! 09:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per BHG. MaybeMaybeMaybe ( talk) 17:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - as with the similar categories for lesbian-related TV series (nominated on Nov. 4) this category violates WP:CATGRS because there is no indication that homosexual males were or are generally treated significantly differently than how homosexual females are or were. The only significant difference is that in the past, lesbians were sometimes but not usually allowed to be shown being slightly more physically intimate than gay men were but that distinction has been breaking down as far back as the last season of Will & Grace. This is distinguished from other forms of gay-related media (but not for all forms of gay-related media). For example gay-interest and lesbian-interest magazines are often radically different in style and content. The rest of this gendered category tree is not, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, germane to this discussion and should be looked at as well. Buck Winston ( talk) 22:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    Please re-read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and note that it refers to articles and various other types of pages, but not to categories.
    There are several good reasons for this. Firstly, categories are constructed where possible as consistent series; the speedy criteria are largely based on consistency of series, and there are long-standing guidelines such as WP:SMALLCAT which specifically acknowledge that series of categories need to be treated differently.
    If the nominator believes that American gay-related television programs should not be separated from other gay-related TV shows, then might be a point to this nomination. But that is not what the nominator argues. The case made is a general one that there there is no need to distinguish gay male TV shows from LGBT-related shows; no argument is made that American shows are an exception to the generality.
    Removing only the American category creates an anomaly in categorisation, whereby TV shows can be categorised as "nationality gay male" so long as they are not American. Creating unjustified exceptions like this simply messes up the category tree, and makes it harder for editors to categorise articles properly and consistently.
    As an illustration of the folly of this nomination, please note that if the merger was carried outa s proposed, every one of the articles could immediately be recategorised in Category:Gay-related television programs. So what would this merger have achieved? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • There are currently three Fooian gay-related programs categories and they are all up for deletion or merger as are their lesbian-related counterparts. At this time it appears that each of those nominations is going to result in the removal of the category either through deletion or merger. If the rest of this rudimentary tree were not already nominated for deletion then your point about an anomaly would be valid. But the point is addressed through the remaining nominations. Much of the rest of the "gay-related" and "lesbian-related" category structure, in large measure the creation of a single editor, is on its way to being dismantled. It would have been nice if they'd all been nominated at once but they weren't. That they weren't isn't a reason to keep a bad category around. Buck Winston ( talk) 01:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I have just checked. There are two other currently-open discussions, on CFD Nov 4 and CFD Nov 5. Both of them were opened by you.
    It is highly disruptive to have three separate discussions on these categories, because none of the nominations make any argument that there is a particular issue relating to one particular country. At best that leads to the discussion being replicated in triplicate, which is a pointless and disruptive waste of the time and energy of editors; at worst it leads to selective participation, with possibility of inconsistent outcomes.
    The two newer nominations have been opened by Buck Winston, to whom I am replying here ... but even when coming back to this discussion to repky, Buck didn't even bother to link to those other discussions which he had opened. This sort of non-disclosure of unnecessarily-split discussions is highly disruptive. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Excuse me? First off, I did link the November 4 discussion in my first comment to this debate. Not my fault if you failed to notice it. Second, the reason I gave for my !vote here is the same as my reason for nominating the other two categories. Third, the two additional discussions were opened on different days because one of the categories did not exist until November 5, something you might have checked on before throwing shade. I'm good, but not even I can be expected to nominate categories for deletion before someone makes them.
  • I do not appreciate the combative and disrespectful tone you're taking. I have acted completely appropriately in discussing this category and in nominating and discussing the others. In future I expect to be treated with the same courtesy that I have extended to you.
  • The reason this category should be merged is exactly as I said. There is no body of evidence that indicates that gay-related series in the United States are substantively different from how American television treats the rest of the LGBT acronym. Did you have some comment on that or did you just want to bitch about process and defame people instead? Buck Winston ( talk) 03:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BHG. G is a valid subcategorization of LGBT. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 16:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Only when there is specific evidence that it is noticably unique. There is no justification to create every possible subcategorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment specific intersections like this cannot be kept just because there is a tree. There needs to be substantive evidence that the specifi intersection is studied in its own right. Thus the category needs to stand on its own, not because of a larger tree. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2012 (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:Neighbourhoods in Crawley

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per other recently standardized subcategories of Category:Neighbourhoods in England. All similar categories were renamed in this nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from category creator: the reason for using the Neighbourhoods... term here was that Crawley is a special case: the 13 areas in question are known specifically and exclusively as neighbourhoods. See for example here. Here's a possible solution: Crawley has these 13 "neighbourhoods" and a few other general "areas" that aren't part of the neighbourhood structure ( Lowfield Heath, Tinsley Green etc). Could we retain this category and its contents, but make it a sub-category of a new Category:Areas of Crawley which then includes the other bits and pieces and links up to Category:Neighbourhoods in England and Category:Crawley? Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC) → PS If this approach is taken, I can sort out which articles should live in the "Areas of Crawley" category in addition to those I mentioned. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nominator, but create a {{ category redirect}} from Category:Neighbourhoods in Crawley. "Neighbourhoods" may be the current term used by the council, but local government terminology in these matters is not settled and has not become common usage. There seems to be no substantive distinction between an "area" and a "neighbourhood" other than current council usage, so there is no reason to add an extra layer to the category tree. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This is not merely current local government usage; they have been called neighbourhoods since they were created with the founding of the New Town in 1947, and were referred to as such from the time the Master Plan was designed. Online info on this is scanty ( the Victoria County History has some though), but all book sources (including but not limited to those cited at Crawley) use the term exclusively. Simply put, "neighbourhoods" in the context of Crawley has a specific, discrete meaning that is unrelated to the general use of the term. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by the evidence of Hassocks5489 that "neighbourhoods of Crawley" is an exceptional case of the term being commonly used well-defined and discrete set of a specific type of area. Thanks for explaining it so well.
    Like Perkingiron, I support the idea of parenting this is a new Category:Areas of Crawley. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- as a New Town, I can conceive that Crawley was planned as a series of "Neighbourhoods". If these are adequately defined, they could form the basis of a category scheme. This would be an exception, due to an exceptional structure. Generally in UK, neighbourhoods are undefined and liable to be flexible in extent: estate agents will claim that a place is in a popular or affluent area, when historically it is beyond (say) the ancient parish boundary; I am thinking of an example there this has occurred locally. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as the common name (and actually the official names since the formation of a new town) for parts of Crawley are "Neighbourhoods" per Hassocks5489, support 5489s suggestion that the crawley neighbourhoods cat is made a subcat of crawley areas. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:58, 7 November 2012 (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:Gangnam-gu

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. All the other "gu" categories can be speedily nominated for renaming per this decision.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Then what is the point of nominating just this one category? Why not nominate them all, since they all violate the convention, especially since closing CfDs seems to be out of fashion? - choster ( talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Per main article. Sawol ( talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (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:ENGREF alumni

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 to Category:Alumni of the French National School of Forestry. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplication of Category:Alumni of the French National School of Forestry. Bob247 ( talk) 07:00, 2 November 2012 (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:Law enforcement of the San Francisco Bay Area

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on deletion (though this could be proposed in a new nomination); rename for now to satisfy convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per general consensus: no categories are "law enforcement of Foo", while many are "law enforcement in Foo" Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Question. No matter how it is titled, do we need to categorize law enforcement at this level? Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is a hodge-podge mixture of things that really do not belong together. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We do have Category:Law enforcement in the United States, well established, which also includes a wide range of items. My renaming proposal didnt include an idea to create another layer, Category:Law enforcement agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area (I know, opinion has been expressed that we dont need this level of categorization, but this would parallel the national and state structure Category:Law enforcement in California, and the Bay Area has had its own category structure for a long time now). Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 19:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • But not everything for the Bay area needs a category! If the police are in a city, then they will be in a city category in a county category in the SFB category. What is so unique to need categorize these departments as being in the SFB area? That would be like classifying LEOs in the Mohave Desert. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Comment your point is well taken. I would try to argue the point for keeping further, but, since i myself have created SFBA categories (not this one), I think i should recuse myself from any discussion on whether this category should stay or go, as i believe i am too close to the subject (SFBA categories, not law enforcement) to be objective enough to discuss. I will accept whatever decision is made, and will limit my input to only what i originally proposed, which is the one-word change to fit with what appears to be the category naming consensus.(mercurywoodrose) 99.31.166.60 ( talk) 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing in the discussion indicates that this category really is defining or needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:37, 9 November 2012 (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:Million Dollar Quartet members

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No such quartet ever existed, it was only a name given to a recording of an impromptu jam session which is not definitive for these musicians, who are individually notable. They were already notable before this "quartet" existed. It's not definitive because it never truly existed. The Old Jacobite The '45 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Your rationale makes no sense. How does the existence of the article necessitate the category? The categorization is trivial and the question of whether such a "quartet" ever existed is not arbitrary. The members' individual notability did not derive from being in said "quartet," the "quartet," in which none of them ever claimed membership, is notable only because of them. This is not arbitrary, it is simple fact that the quartet was only named afterward, and only for purposes of marketing the recording. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT: 'Small with no potential for growth: Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members'. This is a perfect example. (As noted above, WP:OC#PERF probably applies as well.) Simply put, there's no need for this category to link together these four musicians as the 'Million Dollar Quartet'; they're already described as such in their articles and the Quartet's article. This category adds nothing. Robofish ( talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" such as Category:Musicians by band. It is odd how often the first part of WP:SMALLCAT gets quoted, without the 'unless' clause. Oculi ( talk) 00:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No, Category:Musicians by band is not relevant because, as I and others have said, there never was a "band". This was merely a title made up for the release of the recordings. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as in actuality a performer by performance category, which we do not do. This was a one-time performance, not an actual musical group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Performer by performance. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 10:49, 6 November 2012 (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.

various subdivision categories

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) 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete - WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES - regardless of their title, these categories are essentially CategorySubdivisions of countries that are title "District", "Ward", etc.... these are various subdivisions solely with common names (some of which are merely translations of the real local names (e.g. Rayons become "districts" in Wikipedian Azerbaijan, but Raions in Ukraine don't - see Category:Raions of Ukraine - go figure). Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that a foo-named administrative subdivision of one country is anything like that of another, serving the same functions, having the same powers, having similar officers, whether its power derives sui generis or whether its power is devolved by some unitary authority, etc. - purely coincidence of name. Take, e.g., Districts of Israel (1st level), Districts of India (2nd level), Districts of Iran (3rd level), and Districts of South Korea (see Administrative divisions of South Korea, which appear to come in two flavors, one submunicipal). We have categories with first-, second- etc. level subdivisions; these add nothing but coincidence of names. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except parishes per nominator. Good catch: this is indeed a set of categories by shared name, which has long been deprecated.
    However, the parishes should be set aside for separate discussion and closer scrutiny, because the term parish is primarily used to refer to the smallest organisational unit of christian denominations, so it may be worth keeping that one. I suggest splitting it out to a separate section below to allow closer scrutiny. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. These terms are meaningless by themselves, and are defined by the country rather than by the name. If this isn't the case for some, such as perhaps parishes, then there may be an argument for keeping. From a look through however, parish seems to be in the same, if not worse boat, as it seems to include both religious and non-religious parishes. CMD ( talk) 12:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except parishes per nom and BrownHairedGirl. I have WP:BOLDly separated parishes into a separate discussion below as suggested by BHG. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not delete until each country subcat is placed in its proper sub-category within the tree Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level where they should all belong and where they are not all present. This requires county-by-county checking. Hmains ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This ought to be a useful navigation aid, even if the entities categorised may vary from country to country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; for navigation, comparing like with like is easiest via Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level.- choster ( talk) 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The problem here is more assuming that different names mean different things than that the same name means the same thing, but we should avoid what is categorization by name instead of function. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:31, 7 November 2012 (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.

Parishes by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Civil parishes by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete - WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES - nominated above by Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC). Split into this separate discussion by – Fayenatic L ondon 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not delete until each country subcat is placed in its proper sub-category within the tree Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level where they should all belong and where they are not all present. This requires county-by-county checking. Hmains ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- They may vary somewhat in scope, but they share the name, and should thus be useful as a navigation tool. There are two types of parish in England - civil and ecclesiatical. In some countries, they are largely only of historic interest. In mine, civil parishes are functioning local authories. I see no good reason for getting rid of the category, even if the function may vary considerably from country to country. Unfortunately, reality is complicated and we cannot expect everything to fit into tidy boxes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Question. Isn't this name ambiguous per Peterkingiron? If kept it probably should be renamed to Category:Administrative parishes by country. Should/would this include Louisiana's parishes? Noting that those are county level and not local authorities. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, in some places parishes are religious divisions, in some places (like Australia), they are inactive vestigial civil divisions, and in some places (like Louisiana), they are functional civil divisions. All three seem to be mixed together in this category. I wouldn't have any opposition to a separate division being created for religious parishes of each denomination that uses them, but the civil parishes are nothing alike apart from their names and thus a category is inappropriate. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC). reply
    comment However, that is not case here. The parent category Category:Parishes states that this category tree is only for for civil/administrative parishes, not religiou ones. If there are indeed any religious ones in this tree (I did not see any), they should be removed. Which are the religious ones? Hmains ( talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    In Category:Parishes of Australia, we have three land registration units, and a Catholic parish, for instance. That's the only country I've looked at, since it's the one that I know best. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, but rename to Category:Civil parishes by country. In cases where civil parishes exist (or have existed), they are the lowest-level administrative division, so they share enough commonality to merit collective categorisation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per BHG. The fact that in the US the primary use of the term parish is for a religious organization should cause us to have a disambiguator in the category name to make it clear what it is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per BHG. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • rename per BHG as required for disambiguation; at the same time, remove any religious parishes from any part of this category tree, and see about getting the subcats in this tree renamed as well. Hmains ( talk) 03:11, 15 November 2012 (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:India media stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use the demonym. Dawynn ( talk) 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose this is highly misleading, since "Indian media" is frequently used to mean "ethnic Indian media" or "American Indian media", and since Indian and American Indian (Native American / Amerind, not Indian-American) aren't even remotely related, this would make it ever more ambiguous. Use "India media stubs" would be non-ambiguous. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename See Category:Indian media and its subcats, and its siblings. The stub category should match the permcat without a good reason to differ - if you think the permcat is highly misleading, it is the one you should be arguing to rename. (Incidentally I notice American Indian is a dabpage with Indian American as the top link and the only one to use the term "Indian") -- Qetuth ( talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Comment that is not the dominant meaning of the term in America. (which would be Amerindian) And Red Indian/American Indian/Indian/Injun would easily be confusable, with Indians of India. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 05:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep we generally use the plain noun name of countries in stab cats. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:34, 7 November 2012 (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:People's Republic of China media stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:China media stubs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use the demonym. Dawynn ( talk) 01:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose this is highly misleading, since "Chinese media" is frequently used to mean "ethnic Chinese media" or "Chinese-language media" in many English-speaking areas of the world. "China media stubs" would work much better, without the highly ambiguous nature given to country demonyms that are shared with linguistic and ethnic nomenclature. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Changing the name changes the scope of this category drastically. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 09:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This one is a little more complicated than other countries due to the conflict over the name China, but I'd still like to point out that demonyms are used to mean nationalities NOT languages throughout wikipedia. Demonym-language is always used when language is meant. There are literally thousands of categories which you could argue are ambiguous because it could be taken to mean language, and yet the consensus is to use demonyms for them.
However, as I understand the latest decisions and article renames, wikipedia now considers 'China' to mean PRC, but 'Chinese' to be a broader term including (among others) ROC? (Anyone who actually managed to follow that mess feel free to confirm or deny). In current stub cats ROC templates and cats all use 'Taiwan' and none of them use the corresponding 'China' or 'Chinese' cats as parents. Is 'Chinese media' not the correct scope to be a parent to 'Chinese films' etc? In which case the film cats should be renamed. -- Qetuth ( talk) 11:41, 2 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_2&oldid=1138397116"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2

Members of the Scottish Parliament

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 Option A. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming either:
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Both options replace the word "from" with "for". This conforms with both common and official usage (see this example), and clarifies that this is a category of MSPs by where they were elected. The current wording be read as including MSPs who had lived in the relevant constituencies, but represented somewhere entirely different. It matches two similar sets of changes for United Kingdom Members of Parliament: 1 and 2
Option 2 goes a little further by replacing "Foo constituencies" with "constituencies in Foo". This clarifies that the grouping is by geographical scope, rather than by whether the constituency includes "Foo" in its title.
I have no particular preference between the two options, but would like to get rid of that word "from". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Scotland has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • How useful are these categories anyway? eg is there a proper definition of what makes an "Aberdeen constituency"? Is it any constituency that includes some of the city of Aberdeen or Aberdeen city council area, even if most of the constituency is in a different council area? I think it would be more useful to have categories for members by electoral region, eg North East Scotland, Lothian, Glasgow etc. Then these categories would actually cover all of Scotland, and could also include MSPs elected on the additional member system. -- Vclaw ( talk) 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    It seems to me that these categories are important in grouping the political representatives of these cities.
    However, a set of similar categories by electoral region seems like a very good idea. These city categories could be subcats. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- Some time ago, some one started categorising UK (or predecessors) MPs for English constituencies by the county where the constituency was. Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies currently has 3 sub-cats for in that format by county; two in the format "Cumbria MPs" (presumably similar - rather than based on local origin); one for Liverpool constituencies and one each for two specific constituencies - Hackney and Cambridge University. Do we really want to go down the road of splitting the categories to this extent? It needs to be born in mind that some MPs sat for several constituencies in the course of their career. I make this point in relation to UK MPs, because the issue will be much larger with them than for a Scottish Parliament that is now a mere 13 years old. Every constituecny has an article that lists all the people who have represneted it. This is much more useful than a category, which will only place the people in alphabetic order. I therefore wonder whether the answer might not be fell the whole tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Option A - as creator, I had missed that the UK cats had been renamed "from" to "for", otherwise I would have followed the precedent. Really ought to have been a Speedy. In reply to Peterkingiron: these cats are part of the cat trees of each city, eg. if you look at the Edinburgh one (which is part of a large pattern, eg. see Category:Politicians from Cook County, Illinois, Category:Politicians from Chicago, Illinois, Category:Politicians from Dublin (city), etc, etc, etc), it contains sub-cats for councillors (incl Provosts), MPs and MSPs, and will also be populated with the Burgh Commissioners (MPs) for Edinburgh who sat in the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament, as and when we get round to working on that vast topic. In reply to Vclaw: I wholeheartedly agree that it would be "useful to have categories for members by electoral region, eg North East Scotland, Lothian, Glasgow etc.", so feel free! The existence of these 4 city cats does not preclude the creation of regional parent cats, of which these would be sub-cats. Not everything as Wikipedia has to be top-down. In fact, in my experience the best work is done at the micro-level, and overarching article topics, categories, lists, templates etc are often horrific messes that nobody ever seems to have the time to tackle. Eg, look at the huge number of FA articles that have "importance=low" on their WikiProject boxes, and then look at a huge and vastly important topic like English law, which is covered here at Wikipedia by an article that is really no more that a puffed-up, unloved stub (to the point that we really ought to be embarrassed). I digress. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 03:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
But how are those categories defined? Which constituencies do they include? What sources are you using? -- Vclaw ( talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Err... you want me to provide a "source" proving that Glasgow Kelvin is in Glasgow? I feel the urge to back away slowly. What next, do I have to provide a "source" proving that the Pope is a Catholic? In the great, historic conflict between good old fashioned common sense and the School of Making Things Harder Than They Really Are, I cannot help but feel that Wikipedia tends to prefer the latter philosophy.-- Mais oui! ( talk) 05:54, 4 November 2012 (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:Oil and gas companies of China

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It the moment, this category covers both—oil and gas companies. At the same time, more specific category:Oil companies of China. To avoid confusion, a factual split between these companies was carried out and at the moment the categories includes companies having natural gas operations while companies with oil operations are categorized in the category:Oil companies of China. Therefore, the category needs renaming. As an alternative to renaming, category:Oil companies of China may be merged back into this category. However, I think that we have enough Chinese companies to have two more specific categories instead of one more general category. Beagel ( talk) 19:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Answer. No, at the moment this proposal concerns Chinese category only. Maybe one day there would be need for the overall split but at the moment I do not think this is necessary. My proposal based also on the similar precedent some year ago when the proposal was to merge Category:Oil companies of South Korea back to Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea but the consensus was keep both categories with renaming Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea to Category:Natural gas companies of South Korea. Beagel ( talk) 13:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • comment most countries have too few company entries to be worth splitting between oil and natural gas, however pleasing that might be. Hmains ( talk) 20:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No view here but in many countries the same companies deal with both gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons. Many are multinationals. If this is implemented, the process should not be spread wider. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. AFAICS, the pattern is that prospecting for and extracting oil is largely done by the same companies as do the prospecting and extraction of oil. However, there is much less overlap in the distribution methods of the two products, so there tends to be a clearer division at the distribution level. It seems that the split leads to dual-categorisation of exploration and production companies, and I'm not persuaded that this is helpful. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose these two types of companies overlap so much we might as well have one category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (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 from EPs

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There's no need to distinguish which album type a redirect is. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support The difference between and EP and a full album is not something our redirect categories need to bother with. CMD ( talk) 21:41, 2 November 2012 (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:Live albums recorded in Canada

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) 00:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussion ( 1 and 2), these albums by recording location categories should only contain subcategories down to notable venues (e.g. Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios), not generic places. Since this has no subcategories of notable venues, there is no scheme to keep. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:11, 2 November 2012 (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:Albums by format

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) 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We've already deleted categories such as Albums released only digitally with the rationale that the format upon which an album is released is irrelevant and trivial for categorizing. I'm honestly a bit torn, but if we're going to do some formats, we should do all formats. Unless someone wants to get cracking on Category:Albums released on wax cylinder and Category:Albums released on Compact Disc, then we should delete this scheme.— Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: I am the creator of the parent category, but I didn't create the entire scheme myself. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per wise nomination. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom since the format upon which the music is released is not a defining characteristic, particularly in the era of multiple formats seemingly designed to extract money from the hapless consumer with "new" releases simply selling the purchaser something he already has in multiple previous formats. </rant> Bencherlite Talk 18:57, 5 November 2012 (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:Double albums

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) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unless we categorize albums by format (which we generally don't--see my other CfDs above), then this is a meaningless designation. Something may take two LPs and one CD, two CDs and three LPs, one continuous digital stream, etc. Some editions have a bonus disc, some are compact versions of three disc albums. The fact that a set of musical recordings takes up two or three pieces of a certain type of media is trivial. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Note There are subcategories of both of these which would also be included in the deletion. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep double I think this is a defining characteristic for albums. The Wall, for example, is defined because it is a double album and this is reflected in the lead of the article. Lots of critics make lists on the best double albums of all time. Not so sure on the triple album though. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Response I have no objection to the prospect of a list with clearly-defined criteria, but we'll still run into the same problem: X is a double album on vinyl but not Compact Disc, etc. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom who says, Unless we categorize albums by format (which we generally don't--see my other CfDs above), then this is a meaningless designation. The deletion of the category would not mean that a suitable article on the reasons, lengths and notable double albums wouldn't be useful. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP doesn't categorise albums by format, and we have Double album and List of double albums already which so there's no need to listify the contents. Bencherlite Talk 18:55, 5 November 2012 (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:Economists of innovation

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) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Speedy criteria C2C. The parent category ( Category:Economists by area of research) lists as Foo economists. Bob247 ( talk) 16:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, established category structure, and parent article Innovation economics. Robofish ( talk) 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- Innovation Economists are those that have or currently provide theoretical models or applied results in the Economics of Innovation.
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.

Chinese politicians by province

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) 00:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Procedural relisting. This is a procedural relisting of the most of the categories discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 26#Category:Gansu_politicians.
The nomination was a little unclear about the fact that it was proposed to rename more than one category, so while there was a consensus there to rename Category:Gansu politicians to Category:Politicians from Gansu, it is not clear that there was a consensus to rename the others. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Previous discussion relisted below:
Nominator's rationale: Please see below for "umbrella" reasons. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

There needs to be uniformity in the naming geographical subcategories of Category:Chinese politicians. I would like a general discussion on the issue, and, while as I explain below, I would prefer "Politicians from <province/city>," if the discussion results in "<Province/city> politicians," I will accept that; consistency is more important, regardless. I am planning on creating further geographic subcategories for the politicians category after this discussion results in a consensus, and we definitely need to decide on this before I can do that. (I am leaving Hong Kong and Macau off the discussion; those involve even more complicated category trees which I have insufficient expertise/confidence to tackle at the moment, and is probably better driven by Wikipedians with greater familiarity with those two SARs.)

Currently, the geographic subcategories that fall under Category:Chinese politicians are named in two different types. These are:

Under "Politicians from <province/city>":
Under "<Province> politicians":

A number of provinces/other provincial level entities never had such categories created either by me or anyone else, presumably due to the uncertainty due to the inconsistency in the category names. (Chongqing, Fujian, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jilin, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Tianjin, Tibet (although that may be another whole can of worms), Xinjiang, and Zhejiang.)

In my opinion, "Politicians from <province/city>" is a better formulation. It is less ambiguous and less POV. Further, while "<Province> politicians" may not sound awkward, I think "<City> politicians" begins to sound awkward -- there's something that doesn't quite feel right when you begin to talk about "Tianjin politicians" or "Chongqing politicians" (or even smaller divisions, as it may reasonably become necessary given the mass population that China has). (See also the Category:Politicians by city hierarchy.) But again, consistency is more important, and I'd be happy to abide whatever the consensus is. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Rename per nom. I think in general x from y is a better form for city and province level cates. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename it clears up whether these are politicians practicing in Gansu, or just being from it. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Also rename to the "from" form for others, to distinguish politicians hailing from a location, instead of practicing in a location. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 04:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename in all categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle but are we sure that all the people are categorised by the place they came from rather than the place they rule. WE may need separate trees by origin and by engagement. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I plan to be going through the tree once this discussion is over to make sure; however, there is precedent in also considering a person to be "from" a place where he/she gained prominence (which I disagree with, but there are clear examples all over Wikipedia in which that is done). I am planning on trying to place everyone in their birth provinces as much as possible. -- Nlu ( talk) 14:58, 4 November 2012 (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:Perth Waterfront

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 C2A. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The term is not a proper noun, so "waterfront" should not be capitalised. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:27, 2 November 2012 (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:Montenegro media stubs

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 category to Category:Mass media stubs and Category:Montenegro stubs; merge {{ Montenegro-film-director-stub}} to Category:Montenegrin people stubs; keep templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Insufficient article count. Keep template, but upmerge to Category:Mass media stubs and Category:Montenegro stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 11:54, 2 November 2012 (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:Australia media stubs

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) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use demonym. Dawynn ( talk) 11:47, 2 November 2012 (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:American gay-related television programs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is an entire tree for gay male media leading down to this, but I have no idea why. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is indeed part of a category tree under Category:Gay (male) media. If this particular category is to be merged, then it should be merged to both parents (i.e. Category:Gay-related television programs and Category:American LGBT-related television programs).
    However, the nominator's rationale offers no reason for merging this particular category when he thinks its parent is also a bad idea, so rather than correct this merge I will oppose it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Suppport as per nominator's rationale. Nymf hideliho! 09:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per BHG. MaybeMaybeMaybe ( talk) 17:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - as with the similar categories for lesbian-related TV series (nominated on Nov. 4) this category violates WP:CATGRS because there is no indication that homosexual males were or are generally treated significantly differently than how homosexual females are or were. The only significant difference is that in the past, lesbians were sometimes but not usually allowed to be shown being slightly more physically intimate than gay men were but that distinction has been breaking down as far back as the last season of Will & Grace. This is distinguished from other forms of gay-related media (but not for all forms of gay-related media). For example gay-interest and lesbian-interest magazines are often radically different in style and content. The rest of this gendered category tree is not, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, germane to this discussion and should be looked at as well. Buck Winston ( talk) 22:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    Please re-read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and note that it refers to articles and various other types of pages, but not to categories.
    There are several good reasons for this. Firstly, categories are constructed where possible as consistent series; the speedy criteria are largely based on consistency of series, and there are long-standing guidelines such as WP:SMALLCAT which specifically acknowledge that series of categories need to be treated differently.
    If the nominator believes that American gay-related television programs should not be separated from other gay-related TV shows, then might be a point to this nomination. But that is not what the nominator argues. The case made is a general one that there there is no need to distinguish gay male TV shows from LGBT-related shows; no argument is made that American shows are an exception to the generality.
    Removing only the American category creates an anomaly in categorisation, whereby TV shows can be categorised as "nationality gay male" so long as they are not American. Creating unjustified exceptions like this simply messes up the category tree, and makes it harder for editors to categorise articles properly and consistently.
    As an illustration of the folly of this nomination, please note that if the merger was carried outa s proposed, every one of the articles could immediately be recategorised in Category:Gay-related television programs. So what would this merger have achieved? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • There are currently three Fooian gay-related programs categories and they are all up for deletion or merger as are their lesbian-related counterparts. At this time it appears that each of those nominations is going to result in the removal of the category either through deletion or merger. If the rest of this rudimentary tree were not already nominated for deletion then your point about an anomaly would be valid. But the point is addressed through the remaining nominations. Much of the rest of the "gay-related" and "lesbian-related" category structure, in large measure the creation of a single editor, is on its way to being dismantled. It would have been nice if they'd all been nominated at once but they weren't. That they weren't isn't a reason to keep a bad category around. Buck Winston ( talk) 01:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I have just checked. There are two other currently-open discussions, on CFD Nov 4 and CFD Nov 5. Both of them were opened by you.
    It is highly disruptive to have three separate discussions on these categories, because none of the nominations make any argument that there is a particular issue relating to one particular country. At best that leads to the discussion being replicated in triplicate, which is a pointless and disruptive waste of the time and energy of editors; at worst it leads to selective participation, with possibility of inconsistent outcomes.
    The two newer nominations have been opened by Buck Winston, to whom I am replying here ... but even when coming back to this discussion to repky, Buck didn't even bother to link to those other discussions which he had opened. This sort of non-disclosure of unnecessarily-split discussions is highly disruptive. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Excuse me? First off, I did link the November 4 discussion in my first comment to this debate. Not my fault if you failed to notice it. Second, the reason I gave for my !vote here is the same as my reason for nominating the other two categories. Third, the two additional discussions were opened on different days because one of the categories did not exist until November 5, something you might have checked on before throwing shade. I'm good, but not even I can be expected to nominate categories for deletion before someone makes them.
  • I do not appreciate the combative and disrespectful tone you're taking. I have acted completely appropriately in discussing this category and in nominating and discussing the others. In future I expect to be treated with the same courtesy that I have extended to you.
  • The reason this category should be merged is exactly as I said. There is no body of evidence that indicates that gay-related series in the United States are substantively different from how American television treats the rest of the LGBT acronym. Did you have some comment on that or did you just want to bitch about process and defame people instead? Buck Winston ( talk) 03:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BHG. G is a valid subcategorization of LGBT. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 16:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Only when there is specific evidence that it is noticably unique. There is no justification to create every possible subcategorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment specific intersections like this cannot be kept just because there is a tree. There needs to be substantive evidence that the specifi intersection is studied in its own right. Thus the category needs to stand on its own, not because of a larger tree. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2012 (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:Neighbourhoods in Crawley

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per other recently standardized subcategories of Category:Neighbourhoods in England. All similar categories were renamed in this nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from category creator: the reason for using the Neighbourhoods... term here was that Crawley is a special case: the 13 areas in question are known specifically and exclusively as neighbourhoods. See for example here. Here's a possible solution: Crawley has these 13 "neighbourhoods" and a few other general "areas" that aren't part of the neighbourhood structure ( Lowfield Heath, Tinsley Green etc). Could we retain this category and its contents, but make it a sub-category of a new Category:Areas of Crawley which then includes the other bits and pieces and links up to Category:Neighbourhoods in England and Category:Crawley? Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC) → PS If this approach is taken, I can sort out which articles should live in the "Areas of Crawley" category in addition to those I mentioned. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nominator, but create a {{ category redirect}} from Category:Neighbourhoods in Crawley. "Neighbourhoods" may be the current term used by the council, but local government terminology in these matters is not settled and has not become common usage. There seems to be no substantive distinction between an "area" and a "neighbourhood" other than current council usage, so there is no reason to add an extra layer to the category tree. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
This is not merely current local government usage; they have been called neighbourhoods since they were created with the founding of the New Town in 1947, and were referred to as such from the time the Master Plan was designed. Online info on this is scanty ( the Victoria County History has some though), but all book sources (including but not limited to those cited at Crawley) use the term exclusively. Simply put, "neighbourhoods" in the context of Crawley has a specific, discrete meaning that is unrelated to the general use of the term. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by the evidence of Hassocks5489 that "neighbourhoods of Crawley" is an exceptional case of the term being commonly used well-defined and discrete set of a specific type of area. Thanks for explaining it so well.
    Like Perkingiron, I support the idea of parenting this is a new Category:Areas of Crawley. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- as a New Town, I can conceive that Crawley was planned as a series of "Neighbourhoods". If these are adequately defined, they could form the basis of a category scheme. This would be an exception, due to an exceptional structure. Generally in UK, neighbourhoods are undefined and liable to be flexible in extent: estate agents will claim that a place is in a popular or affluent area, when historically it is beyond (say) the ancient parish boundary; I am thinking of an example there this has occurred locally. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as the common name (and actually the official names since the formation of a new town) for parts of Crawley are "Neighbourhoods" per Hassocks5489, support 5489s suggestion that the crawley neighbourhoods cat is made a subcat of crawley areas. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:58, 7 November 2012 (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:Gangnam-gu

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. All the other "gu" categories can be speedily nominated for renaming per this decision.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Then what is the point of nominating just this one category? Why not nominate them all, since they all violate the convention, especially since closing CfDs seems to be out of fashion? - choster ( talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Per main article. Sawol ( talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (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:ENGREF alumni

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 to Category:Alumni of the French National School of Forestry. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplication of Category:Alumni of the French National School of Forestry. Bob247 ( talk) 07:00, 2 November 2012 (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:Law enforcement of the San Francisco Bay Area

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on deletion (though this could be proposed in a new nomination); rename for now to satisfy convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per general consensus: no categories are "law enforcement of Foo", while many are "law enforcement in Foo" Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Question. No matter how it is titled, do we need to categorize law enforcement at this level? Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is a hodge-podge mixture of things that really do not belong together. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We do have Category:Law enforcement in the United States, well established, which also includes a wide range of items. My renaming proposal didnt include an idea to create another layer, Category:Law enforcement agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area (I know, opinion has been expressed that we dont need this level of categorization, but this would parallel the national and state structure Category:Law enforcement in California, and the Bay Area has had its own category structure for a long time now). Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 19:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • But not everything for the Bay area needs a category! If the police are in a city, then they will be in a city category in a county category in the SFB category. What is so unique to need categorize these departments as being in the SFB area? That would be like classifying LEOs in the Mohave Desert. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Comment your point is well taken. I would try to argue the point for keeping further, but, since i myself have created SFBA categories (not this one), I think i should recuse myself from any discussion on whether this category should stay or go, as i believe i am too close to the subject (SFBA categories, not law enforcement) to be objective enough to discuss. I will accept whatever decision is made, and will limit my input to only what i originally proposed, which is the one-word change to fit with what appears to be the category naming consensus.(mercurywoodrose) 99.31.166.60 ( talk) 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing in the discussion indicates that this category really is defining or needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:37, 9 November 2012 (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:Million Dollar Quartet members

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No such quartet ever existed, it was only a name given to a recording of an impromptu jam session which is not definitive for these musicians, who are individually notable. They were already notable before this "quartet" existed. It's not definitive because it never truly existed. The Old Jacobite The '45 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Your rationale makes no sense. How does the existence of the article necessitate the category? The categorization is trivial and the question of whether such a "quartet" ever existed is not arbitrary. The members' individual notability did not derive from being in said "quartet," the "quartet," in which none of them ever claimed membership, is notable only because of them. This is not arbitrary, it is simple fact that the quartet was only named afterward, and only for purposes of marketing the recording. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT: 'Small with no potential for growth: Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members'. This is a perfect example. (As noted above, WP:OC#PERF probably applies as well.) Simply put, there's no need for this category to link together these four musicians as the 'Million Dollar Quartet'; they're already described as such in their articles and the Quartet's article. This category adds nothing. Robofish ( talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" such as Category:Musicians by band. It is odd how often the first part of WP:SMALLCAT gets quoted, without the 'unless' clause. Oculi ( talk) 00:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
No, Category:Musicians by band is not relevant because, as I and others have said, there never was a "band". This was merely a title made up for the release of the recordings. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as in actuality a performer by performance category, which we do not do. This was a one-time performance, not an actual musical group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Performer by performance. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 10:49, 6 November 2012 (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.

various subdivision categories

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) 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete - WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES - regardless of their title, these categories are essentially CategorySubdivisions of countries that are title "District", "Ward", etc.... these are various subdivisions solely with common names (some of which are merely translations of the real local names (e.g. Rayons become "districts" in Wikipedian Azerbaijan, but Raions in Ukraine don't - see Category:Raions of Ukraine - go figure). Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that a foo-named administrative subdivision of one country is anything like that of another, serving the same functions, having the same powers, having similar officers, whether its power derives sui generis or whether its power is devolved by some unitary authority, etc. - purely coincidence of name. Take, e.g., Districts of Israel (1st level), Districts of India (2nd level), Districts of Iran (3rd level), and Districts of South Korea (see Administrative divisions of South Korea, which appear to come in two flavors, one submunicipal). We have categories with first-, second- etc. level subdivisions; these add nothing but coincidence of names. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except parishes per nominator. Good catch: this is indeed a set of categories by shared name, which has long been deprecated.
    However, the parishes should be set aside for separate discussion and closer scrutiny, because the term parish is primarily used to refer to the smallest organisational unit of christian denominations, so it may be worth keeping that one. I suggest splitting it out to a separate section below to allow closer scrutiny. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. These terms are meaningless by themselves, and are defined by the country rather than by the name. If this isn't the case for some, such as perhaps parishes, then there may be an argument for keeping. From a look through however, parish seems to be in the same, if not worse boat, as it seems to include both religious and non-religious parishes. CMD ( talk) 12:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except parishes per nom and BrownHairedGirl. I have WP:BOLDly separated parishes into a separate discussion below as suggested by BHG. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not delete until each country subcat is placed in its proper sub-category within the tree Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level where they should all belong and where they are not all present. This requires county-by-county checking. Hmains ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This ought to be a useful navigation aid, even if the entities categorised may vary from country to country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; for navigation, comparing like with like is easiest via Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level.- choster ( talk) 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The problem here is more assuming that different names mean different things than that the same name means the same thing, but we should avoid what is categorization by name instead of function. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:31, 7 November 2012 (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.

Parishes by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Civil parishes by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete - WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES - nominated above by Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC). Split into this separate discussion by – Fayenatic L ondon 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not delete until each country subcat is placed in its proper sub-category within the tree Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level where they should all belong and where they are not all present. This requires county-by-county checking. Hmains ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- They may vary somewhat in scope, but they share the name, and should thus be useful as a navigation tool. There are two types of parish in England - civil and ecclesiatical. In some countries, they are largely only of historic interest. In mine, civil parishes are functioning local authories. I see no good reason for getting rid of the category, even if the function may vary considerably from country to country. Unfortunately, reality is complicated and we cannot expect everything to fit into tidy boxes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Question. Isn't this name ambiguous per Peterkingiron? If kept it probably should be renamed to Category:Administrative parishes by country. Should/would this include Louisiana's parishes? Noting that those are county level and not local authorities. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, in some places parishes are religious divisions, in some places (like Australia), they are inactive vestigial civil divisions, and in some places (like Louisiana), they are functional civil divisions. All three seem to be mixed together in this category. I wouldn't have any opposition to a separate division being created for religious parishes of each denomination that uses them, but the civil parishes are nothing alike apart from their names and thus a category is inappropriate. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC). reply
    comment However, that is not case here. The parent category Category:Parishes states that this category tree is only for for civil/administrative parishes, not religiou ones. If there are indeed any religious ones in this tree (I did not see any), they should be removed. Which are the religious ones? Hmains ( talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    In Category:Parishes of Australia, we have three land registration units, and a Catholic parish, for instance. That's the only country I've looked at, since it's the one that I know best. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, but rename to Category:Civil parishes by country. In cases where civil parishes exist (or have existed), they are the lowest-level administrative division, so they share enough commonality to merit collective categorisation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per BHG. The fact that in the US the primary use of the term parish is for a religious organization should cause us to have a disambiguator in the category name to make it clear what it is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per BHG. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • rename per BHG as required for disambiguation; at the same time, remove any religious parishes from any part of this category tree, and see about getting the subcats in this tree renamed as well. Hmains ( talk) 03:11, 15 November 2012 (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:India media stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use the demonym. Dawynn ( talk) 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose this is highly misleading, since "Indian media" is frequently used to mean "ethnic Indian media" or "American Indian media", and since Indian and American Indian (Native American / Amerind, not Indian-American) aren't even remotely related, this would make it ever more ambiguous. Use "India media stubs" would be non-ambiguous. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename See Category:Indian media and its subcats, and its siblings. The stub category should match the permcat without a good reason to differ - if you think the permcat is highly misleading, it is the one you should be arguing to rename. (Incidentally I notice American Indian is a dabpage with Indian American as the top link and the only one to use the term "Indian") -- Qetuth ( talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Comment that is not the dominant meaning of the term in America. (which would be Amerindian) And Red Indian/American Indian/Indian/Injun would easily be confusable, with Indians of India. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 05:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep we generally use the plain noun name of countries in stab cats. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:34, 7 November 2012 (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:People's Republic of China media stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:China media stubs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use the demonym. Dawynn ( talk) 01:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose this is highly misleading, since "Chinese media" is frequently used to mean "ethnic Chinese media" or "Chinese-language media" in many English-speaking areas of the world. "China media stubs" would work much better, without the highly ambiguous nature given to country demonyms that are shared with linguistic and ethnic nomenclature. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Changing the name changes the scope of this category drastically. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 09:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This one is a little more complicated than other countries due to the conflict over the name China, but I'd still like to point out that demonyms are used to mean nationalities NOT languages throughout wikipedia. Demonym-language is always used when language is meant. There are literally thousands of categories which you could argue are ambiguous because it could be taken to mean language, and yet the consensus is to use demonyms for them.
However, as I understand the latest decisions and article renames, wikipedia now considers 'China' to mean PRC, but 'Chinese' to be a broader term including (among others) ROC? (Anyone who actually managed to follow that mess feel free to confirm or deny). In current stub cats ROC templates and cats all use 'Taiwan' and none of them use the corresponding 'China' or 'Chinese' cats as parents. Is 'Chinese media' not the correct scope to be a parent to 'Chinese films' etc? In which case the film cats should be renamed. -- Qetuth ( talk) 11:41, 2 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_2&oldid=1138397116"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE