From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4 May 6 >

May 5

Category:Serie A players

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. Kbdank71 13:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Serie A players to Category:Serie A footballers
NominatorPropose renaming's rationale: for clarity - there is a Serie A for several sports (see Serie A (disambiguation) Mayumashu ( talk) 22:33, 5 May 2009 (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.

Folk musical instruments

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to "Fooian musical instruments". Without prejudice to a future nomination to change all of the "musical instrument" categories to "folk instruments". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to "X musical instruments" (Merge in two noted cases). These categories, and their parent cat Category:Folk musical instruments are based on the very vague term "folk", and exist as a much underdeveloped parallel to the very advanced category Category:Musical instruments by nationality. The existence of parallel overlapping categories confuses the appropriateness of each category, and risks having instruments filed in one but not the other. I recommend that all categories in the parent cat be renamed (or merged in the case of Irish and Italian) to fall into the "by nationality" tree. Once the subcats are gone, the parent cat will have no use and can also be deleted, so Category:Musical instruments by nationality will take its place in the Category:Folk music tree as well. Note all the random articles lumped into the parent cat in a basically arbitrary fashion. By that reasoning, practically every instrument in Category:Musical instruments by nationality could be dumped into "Folk". MatthewVanitas ( talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment They could indeed, and that might be a better solution. Johnbod ( talk) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (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:Wind instruments proper

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. Kbdank71 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Wind instruments proper ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Obscure category name based on the Hornbostel-Sachs classification system. This system is not intuitive for non-experts, is not generally used on WP, and when it was used in the past caused much unncessary categorisation, creation of blank or 1-article cats to distinguish between two incredibly similar branches of a family, etc. I've gone through all the articles and ensured that they are also in other logical categories and will not become lost if this cat is deleted. The majority of them fit in the new cat Category:Natural horns, referring to trumpet-like instruments with no fingerholes, slide, or valve (like a bugle or alphorn). MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (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:Small Carpathian Museum

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. Kbdank71 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Small Carpathian Museum ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous, single-article cat for a regional museum. No likelihood for expansion that I can see. Article itself is already in an appropriate category for regional museums ( Category:Museums in Bratislava). Maralia ( talk) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (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:Arts & Crafts Architects

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 (unsure about the addition of "Movement"; if desired, can be renominated). Kbdank71 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Arts & Crafts Architects to Category:Arts and Crafts architects
Nominator's rationale: Rename to fix capitalization of 'architects' and for agreement with corresponding article Arts and Crafts Movement and parent cat Category:Arts and Crafts Movement. Maralia ( talk) 19:28, 5 May 2009 (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:Brothel-keepers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on may 26. Kbdank71 14:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Brothel-keepers to Category:Brothel owners
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The introduction has to explain that this is for people that own brothels so why not use a name that reflects the criteria that is used to determine who should be included? The only subcategory of significance is Category:American brothel-keepers. In the US being called an owner is more common, at least in current usage. If this rename looks like it will gain consensus, I'll nominate all of the sub categories for upmerge to the parent, with the possible exception of the American one would would need a rename, maybe to Category:Owners of brothels in the United States. I'm not sure that classification by nationality is right in this case since it appears that these categories are based on where the brothel is located rather then the nationality of the owner. If so, the name of those subcategories is not correct and the American one would need to be upmerged also. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose. Weak, since my main concern is the poor excuse of WP:IDONTKNOWIT - I've rarely heard the term "brothel owner" used, whereas the term "brothel-keeper" is a very common one. Neither of these terms has its own article (Brothel-keeper is a redirect to pimp; Brothel owner is a redlink). It seems that there are 109 WP articles with the phrase "brothel owner", and 156 with either "brothel keeper" or "brothel-keeper". I suspect that this may be a US/UK English thing, either that or that both terms are used, but in either different places or with slight nuances of meaning. Grutness... wha? 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Conversely if you check with google, "brothel-keeper" with or without the dash returns 28,000 hits and "brothel owner" returns 121,000 hits. So clearly one is more common. Also the presence of Category:Brothel-keepers is by its very nature going to bias the results in favor of that usage. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Also brothel only uses 'brothel owner'. The only use of keeper there is the phrase prostitutes are bought and sold by their keepers. That makes it sound like the keeper terminology is more associated with an owner of prostitutes than an owner of brothels. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:17, 7 May 2009 (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:Appointed Australian Senators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Members of the Australian Senate-- Aervanath ( talk) 09:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Appointed Australian Senators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A not particularly interesting subgroup of Category:Members of the Australian Senate. This nomination follows a discussion begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Category:Appointed Australian Senators, where the general mood was against keeping this newly created category. Digestible ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just so it's clear, what happens is that if a Senator retires during their term cannot complete their term for whatever reason in Australia, as the Australian Senate uses proportional voting, a new person of the same party as the retiring member is appointed to fill the remainder of the term, usually by a vote of their State's parliament (Bit of a simplification but suffices for most purposes). If this was particularly unusual I'd support the category's existence but the fact is it happens a fair bit and most of the appointed senators end up getting elected anyway once the term expires, I don't really see why they are distinguishable. We already have a list for appointed senators which is fine for the purpose. However I'm not actually voting "delete" as I'm honestly unsure. Orderinchaos 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    Just to clarify your clarification: This has nothing to do with retirements. It has everything to do with resignations, deaths, expulsions, and elections/appointments being declared void. The media often confuse retirement with resignation, so it's not surprising that others do too. A retirement is when a senator/member decides they've had enough, but rather than leaving immediately, they see out their existing term but choose not to contest the next election (whenever it is; and the timing of that election is outside their control). Sometimes they have wanted to go on, but didn;t get party re-endorsement, so they bow put graceully (or not). A resignation is when they leave immediately, before their term is finished. In that case, they and they alone decide the date of their departure; They have to formally resign in writing, and the resignation becomes effective immediately it's received by the Speaker/President. It's an active action, if you like. Retirement is a passive action; they don't have to do anything at all, but merely fail to nominate for the election. The parliamentary/electoral admin people will notice that their name is not among the names of people who have formally nominated to contest the election, and they will deem them to have retired. -- JackofOz ( talk) 22:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    That's what I get for trying to explain things in the middle of the night. :) Others should read my comments in light of Jack's. Orderinchaos 09:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have Category:Appointed United States Senators, altough as Orderinchaos describes the situation is different (especially with all the attention about the appointment of Obama's successor). For a high office, how one gets in the door seems defining within that context. I also note that not all appointed Australian Senators is elected in his/her own right - although with proportional voting - that may not be his/her fault - unlike their American counterparts. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Reply I don't think we should assume that the situation in the US is the same as that in Australia. It appears that appointment is much more common process in Australia than in the US. I can see the point of how-one-gets-in-the-door, but many parliaments have a variety of ways of getting in the door, such as by-elections, or by defaulting to someone lower down a list where the list system of voting is used. It's all too easy to start generating categories for political office-holders which relate neither to their periods of service nor to what they did in office, and since we already have the beginnings of categorisation of Australian senators by state, this risks ending up as an extra category, adding to clutter. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • The selection of Cory Bernardi is one example of how it works. As the outgoing was a Liberal Party member ( Robert Hill, who got appointed as an ambassador), the SA state governor (not an elected role as it is in the US) asked the Liberal Party to nominate a person, they did so, the SA state parliament voted to endorse that choice, then that person was sworn in as a federal senator. Orderinchaos 09:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Members of the Australian Senate. I can see arguments either way, but in general I'm wary over-categorising politicians, so I'm happy to go with the consensus at WT:AUP -- and I note that there is already a list at List of Australian Senate appointments.
    However, deletion is not sufficient, because some articles would then not be categorised as senators -- better to upmerge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not sure of the point of this; everyone in this category should already be in the above category. Rebecca ( talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Rebecca's right - they'd be in both categories, noone would be in this category who is not already in the other. Orderinchaos 09:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Many times individual articles are removed from a parent category once it's placed in a subcategory. Probably safer just to have a bot merge them in case one or two are in this situation when closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - (As the creator of this category, I would hardly vote any other way.) One thing I bear in mind is that there are/have been five different pathways, involving three separate pieces of legislation, to senate appointments:
(a) In most cases, they're chosen by the state parliament under S.15 of the Constitution.
(b) In some cases, they've been appointed by the state governor, and then confirmed by the state parliament within 14 days. (There were also a couple of cases where they were appointed by the governor but the appointment lapsed because the parliament didn't confirm it within the time frame specified in S.15; so that step is very relevant).
(c) For Territory Senators, the relevant legislature makes the choice, under s.44 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
(d) Where the legislature is not in session, the choice is made by the Chief Minister of the ACT or the Administrator of the NT.
(e) Prior to that legislation, a joint sitting of the Federal Parliament was used to choose two ACT senators, under s.9 of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973.
Given this complexity, I feel a category is warranted. -- JackofOz ( talk) 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
They might have been appointed under a number of pieces of legislation, but you're still referring to a whopping percentage of the members of the Senate ever, nearly all of whom have gone on to become elected Senators at the next election. The sole point of the US category lies in the fact that those Senators will in most cases face a special election - thus there's a fair few that don't get re-elected. Every one of these people goes straight on the party list, so unless they get particularly unlucky, they're going to be re-elected. Rebecca ( talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The complexity of the process doesn't necessitate a category. There is no real difference between an appointed Senator and an elected one; appointed ones are very commonly elected eventually anyway. We may as well have a category for MPs who have been elected in by-elections, but I don't think there's much point in that either. The situation is completely different from the United States; appointment is far more common in Australia; indeed, it's almost routine. As such there is very little point in this category. (It shouldn't need to be upmerged, as they should all already be in Category:Members of the Australian Senate.) Frickeg ( talk) 22:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per Frickeg. Rebecca ( talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep captures a defining characteristic of these senators, grouping the usefully for navigation purposes. Alansohn ( talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It's actually in no way a defining characteristic of these senators - there's nothing special about it, and there is no difference in the Senate itself between an appointed senator and an elected one. Unlike in the US, they don't have to face a special election or anything out of the ordinary. Frickeg ( talk) 07:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge to Category:Members of the Australian Senate. From my knowledge, I would say this is not particularly defining for an Australian senator. I'm inclined to go with the general consensus the Australian Wikiproject agreed to. (How's that for a change?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - based on the discussion, not a defining characteristic of the senator in question and not comparable to the US category. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Frickeg. -- Kbdank71 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Maybe I'm being paranoid or overly sensitive, but the latest addition to the cat page looks like it's inviting people to vote for Delete, but there's no corresponding invitation to vote for Keep. -- JackofOz ( talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • From someone on the other side of the debate: you're quite right. It seems to have been there since the template was first added, though. How very odd. Can it be fixed? Frickeg ( talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (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:Oxford student societies

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:Clubs and societies of the University of Oxford Erik9 ( talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Oxford student societies to Category:Clubs and societies of the University of Oxford
Nominator's rationale: Rename to put "University" in there, and per the standard of Category:British student societies. Bencherlite Talk 22:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This was relisted because the category wasn't tagged. -- Kbdank71 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Oops, sorry - I tend to nominate using Twinkle, and I didn't spot that the process hadn't completed smoothly. Bencherlite Talk 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Technically some are "recognised" by the U & some are not, but I expect all these are official. Oops, I'm sure the Piers Gaveston Society and Bullingdon are not. Not sure how much of an issue this is. Johnbod ( talk) 14:06, 5 May 2009 (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:Philippine National Railway stations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Philippine National Railway stations to Category:Philippine National Railways stations
Nominator's rationale: Since the official name of the company is "Philippine National Railways" (with the 's'), the category should accurately reflect the correct corporate name. -- Sky Harbor ( talk) 11:33, 5 May 2009 (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:Training bicycle (for children, instead of training wheels)

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. Kbdank71 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Training bicycle (for children, instead of training wheels) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as an unnecessarily small and specific category that is unlikely to grow; the one article in the category ( Balance bicycle) is already in the sole parent, Category:Cycle types. If kept, rename to something much shorter. Bencherlite Talk 11:09, 5 May 2009 (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.

British Secretaries of State

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on may 26. Kbdank71 14:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging:
Nominator's rationale: I started this nomination thinking that I would make no firm I make no recommendation, and that the purpose of this nomination is to ask whether categorisation-by-ministry is actually a good idea in these cases ... but the more I look at it the more I think these categories are a Bad ThingTM; . I am not persuaded that they are anywhere as useful for navigation as they might appear, and I worry that a growth in the number of these categories will lead to category clutter in the articles on politicians, who always seem to be at risk of proliferating categories.
For navigation, I think that the categories are un-necessary. There are already lists of these office-holders, as well as (in most cases) succession boxes on the biographical articles.
One perceived benefit may be the possibility of international groupings of particular ministers, such as Category:Environment ministers and Category:Education ministers. However, both of those categories are flawed, because they make sense only if one govt department retains responsibility for that area, which is no longer the case.
All of these posts in the three nominated categories are now defunct, their responsibilities having gone on a merry-go-round through shifting departments. The environmental responsibilities moved from Secretary of State for the Environment to Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and then Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and then part of the environmnetal brief was split off to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. (The local govt part of the old Secretary of State for the Environment's job has taken a similiar path)
In the last two decades, there has been an acceleration of the long-standing process of restructuring ministries. The old department of employment dealt with workplace regulation, labour exchanges/unemployment, and training, but the dept has been abolished and those functions now all belong in to separate cabinet ministers. Similarly education has been split between the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills
Even when a British government departments continues to exist, as various directorates or lower-level units are moved to other departments; broadcasting, for example, was part of the Home Office until the mid-1990s, then went to the Department of National Heritage, which became the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If we really set about categorising ministers by their responsibilities, we will end up with an almighty kaleidescope of categories, with each department multiply parented. If we don't do that, we end up with dead ends, like Category:Secretaries of State for the Environment (UK) which includes no UK environment ministers since 1997, just the point at which the environmnet began to move up the scale of priorities.
Most cabinet ministers also serve in several post during their careers (look at the succession boxes for Michael Howard, Michael Heseltine, et al) and if we categorise by post we will generate huge category clutter. Much better to just categorise by rank, which wil;l leave one category for politicians who reach Sec-of-state level. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Nomination seems to have stalled, so I'll make a comment if I may... I'd point out that these are also sub-categories of Category:Education ministers, so it's actually categorisation by ministry and nationality, which seems a sensible method. If not, then a double-upmerger would be required, and the rest of the structure would be need looking at. Bencherlite Talk 10:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose any upmerge -- I see no objection to renaming the present categories by inserting the word "British" and removing "UK". Education has been combined with various other roles in recent times, but I would suggest that this be retained, holders of the Education portfolio having this category, even though it is only part of their role. The employment portfolio also has had a long history. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:13, 17 May 2009 (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:Uzigrip rifles and submachine guns

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. Kbdank71 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Uzigrip rifles and submachine guns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Grouping by a vague structural similarity that doesn't really indicate any relationship. Also not a widely-used technical term for that type of grip. Overall, I can't see any utility to grouping these (generally unrelated) firearms together just by virtue of where the magazine fits into the gun. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 07:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - probably not a clearly defined characteristic. Robofish ( talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (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:Fred

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. Kbdank71 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Fred ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as eponymous over-categorization – the category is not needed to house the character and a list of episodes, both of which link to the other anyway. If kept, it needs a rename to Category:Fred (character) to match Fred (character). and needs one or more parent categories. Parents now added Bencherlite Talk 06:54, 5 May 2009 (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:Power transmission

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:Mechanical power transmission Erik9 ( talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Power transmission to Category:Power transmission (mechanical)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Power transmission covers both the mechanical kind and of electrical power. Based on the introduction, this category seems to be for the mechanical type and should be named to reflect that and remove any ambiguity about the purpose of the category. The electrical related category is Category:Electric power transmission systems. I'm open to other versions for a rename target which might include Category:Mechanical power transmission systems. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:29, 5 May 2009 (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:Ballad 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. Kbdank71 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Ballad albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unsourced population. The ballad doesn't have a consistent definition. Many of these album don't match any of the definitions. - Freekee ( talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't be sure what's in or out? then the category is out. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 04:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subjective inclusion criteria — and this isn't a generally recognized type of album, but merely an original research attempt to categorize albums by the type of songs they happen to include. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The word "ballad" as used here doesn't appear to match the article Ballad. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:20, 9 May 2009 (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:Ballad compilation 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. Kbdank71 13:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Ballad compilation albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Same reason for as above CfD. Freekee ( talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not objective, also. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 04:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subjective inclusion criteria — and this isn't a generally recognized type of album, but merely an original research attempt to categorize albums by the type of songs they happen to include. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (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:Entertainment districts

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) 10:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Entertainment districts to Category:Arts districts
Nominator's rationale: I created this category a while back, influenced by hometown's new Quartier des Spectacles, Toronto's eponymous Entertainment District and others. Should I have named it Category:Arts districts, per Arts district? Or is a simple redirect all that's required? Or is there some notable distinction between the two, with the pre-existing main article Arts district taking precedence? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not convinced that the two are the same. Clearly several of the articles in Category:Entertainment districts would not be considered as an arts district. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete cannot objectively determine what districts are "entertainment districts" - given the slews of tourists and locals being entertained at various venues in numerous districts where others just try to live gets a place into this category? How about The Castro, Amsterdam Red Light District, Disneyland, South of Market (San Francisco), Westwood, Los Angeles, Reeperbahn, or make it a parent of Category:Red-light districts, or are we only talking high-brow entertainment? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I guess that all depends on what you think it is. As of a few minutes ago, entertainment district is a dab page. I think that anything that meets the generic use there could be a valid member for this category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "Arts district" is a purely North American term, and different anyway, as are (usually) red-light districts. Johnbod ( talk) 13:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Do we need an article on entertainment districts or is the primary use in the dab page sufficient? Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • My notion in creating the entertainment district category was that designated "entertainment," "arts," and god help me, "cultural" districts were all one and the same. Carlossuarez46 has rightly pointed out the need for greater precision in how this cat (and main article) are defined. IMHO, the Arts district article and Entertainment district dab could be merged, with the existing category trimmed so that show business cities such as Hollywood are removed, perhaps to some new category such as Film industry centres? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meaningfully groups articles for navigation by a defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 05:09, 6 May 2009 (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:Labour case law in the United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Looks like a broader discussion is needed to bring some consistency throughout the scheme and to encourage more participation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedies Grutness... wha? 00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest renaming Category:Labour case law in the United Kingdom to Category:United Kingdom labour case law

here was the old discussion; but nobody asked me! I'm the only one who's been using it. I propose the alternative name because it's shorter, less cumbersome. I very much doubt there would be objections. I wanted to request that the people who move it in the first place use a bot to transfer the articles to the new category. Wik idea 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

    • That isn't a speediable change - you need to make it a full CFD for discussion. Given that the parent categories are a confusion of "X in Foo" and "Fooian X", this might need some more widespread decision-making. Grutness... wha? 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Can somebody please help me, and put this request in the right category, so that the cogs may turn (however slowly!). I would be very surprised if there were any objections. I'd be very grateful for somebody to move this, because I got lost on these pages. I just want someone to use a bot to change the categories!!! Wik idea 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The main problem I see here (apart from the fact that it wasn't speediable, which is no longer an issue), is the general naming of the whole group of categories of which this is part. It's currently a subtype of Category:Labour law of the United Kingdom, itself a subtype of Category:Law in the United Kingdom. There's a swapping between "of" and "in", but the "X of/in Foo" form is fine from the regard of the current name. However, it's also a subtype of Category:United Kingdom case law, so the new name would suit that. Even worse, Category:United Kingdom case law also contains both Category:Equality case law in the United Kingdom and Category:United Kingdom company case law. It's a real mix'n'match. A perfect example of the problem can be seen by looking at the subcategories and articles in Category:Labour law by country. There's no apparent consistency anywhere. This would probably need to be part of an overarching discussion on how the all law-related categories should be named. Grutness... wha? 10:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You're right. So consistency in which direction? I'd like it if it were consistent in the direction of being short!! It obviously makes more sense doesn't it? The deviant categories with "in the" could be changed next. But can we do this one now, please! Wik idea 01:52, 12 May 2009 (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:Puerto Rican brothel-keepers

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 as nominated, without prejudice to future proposals for deletion or renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Puerto Rican brothel-keepers to Category:Puerto Rican sex workers and Category:American brothel-keepers
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Small category with parents that are not over populated. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment note that there is a category: Category:Puerto Rican pimps and madams which would be probably a better choice for merger than "sex workers" cat, since keeping a house of ill repute doesn't necessary mean you work at sex - any more than being a white house intern does. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • This entire structure needs some looking at. Category:Puerto Rican pimps and madams is included in Category:Sex workers several levels up. The term 'brothel-keepers' seems odd for the US, so this may be a US/UK/AUS language difference but it does not appear to be used in the brothel article. Likewise the brothel owners are not sex workers and may not even be a pimp when all they do is hire independent contractors. Then you have the POV issues with labeling someone as a pimp. Finally madam is ambiguous and the usage here is not the primary usage of the word. Not sure what we need to do with Category:Pimps and madams. So I look at this nomination as a simple cleanup with more to come. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Perhaps sex workers should be retermed "workers in the sex industry" - which would include those who do or do not have sex as part of their job duties. For Puerto Rico, I think US English is appropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Sounds like a reasonable approach. Are you contemplating that as a proposal? Do you see a problem including all of the producers and directors in there? That change would broaden the scope of the category by a lot. Would that include German Goo Girls? Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:36, 5 May 2009 (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:Brothel-keepers from Melbourne

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Brothel-keepers from Melbourne to Category:People from Melbourne and Category:Australian brothel-keepers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with small parents. Not sure about the notability of the brothel-keeper parent, but that is a different problem. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, with some regret. The same two people as are all those in the "Australian" parent. Johnbod ( talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (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/2009_May_5&oldid=1138392963"