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 based on the modified nomination.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To bring into line of XX in YY as per
WP:NCCAT and following the convention in category hierarchy of
Category:Cycle racing in YY. Three renaming debates have taken place about sports teams before in February 2008:
baseball,
basketball and
ice hockey. Not all sports follow this (for example,
Category:Rugby union teams and
Category:Association football clubs by country); however, cycling teams are eligible to compete pretty much wherever they like, seldom competing in a national league structure, and at the top level the country that a team is based in is pretty irrelevant in sporting terms (for example,
Astana (cycling team) have been based in three countries in four seasons) and so the adjective form of the country name is inappropriate.
SeveroTC 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Cylcing teams based in France etc. I think there is some (not a lot) relevancy in noting this, and/but can t think of any other way to subdivide
Category:Cycling teams. The suggested rename is not a better option as it suggests even more so that the teams listed participate in the countries named.
Mayumashu (
talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I was considering bringing this naming style in this nomination and am happy with that if it's preferred.
SeveroTC 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Updated to reflect suggestion.
SeveroTC 20:07, 14 June 2010 (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:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels
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. AFD's may indeed be warranted, but that's outside the jurisdiction of CFD.
Courcelles (
talk) 22:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. I would suspect that many of these are deserving of {{AfD}}s themselves... —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 22:19, 13 June 2010 (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:Poland related unreferenced BLP
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.
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - we don't have any similar categories for other countries; I find it hard to believe that among the 28,222 articles in
Category:All unreferenced BLPs (updated number:939), there's no country with at least as many as Poland (which has 8 articles - current number: 0).
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete I do not see the value of organizing these by country.
Mangoe (
talk) 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support -- I hope this is a talk page category; if not it should be. The category may have a point in that it may encourage an editor who knows about Poland to provide references.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - as a creator of the category. I created it well before the other BLP categories (actually with the explicit purpose mentioned by Peterkingiron above) were created and it has since become superfluous. Also re Mishehu's comment - the category went through almost 200 articles but most of them got sourced. Since then another category project (
[1]) has been created that deals with newly created BLPs that would normally go in there.
radek (
talk) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (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:Solar energy standards
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.
What about Category:Fuel cell standards ?. I think you like the solar topics more than other topics. ;-) Although there are other reasons, add also Category:Fuel cell standards to the deletion or maintain both. --
Nudecline (
talk) 06:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Category:Fuel cell standards is reasonably well populated: yours cannot be, at least at this time. Your comment only reinforces my feeling that you are unable to comprehend why your categories are being deleted, one after the other.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete No sign of improvement and Shawn's argument seems to me to be correct.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:16, 25 June 2010 (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:Yamaha
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.
Support More formal naming preferable, clearer.
Mayumashu (
talk) 13:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support to match prime article name.
MilborneOne (
talk) 21:34, 17 June 2010 (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:NTT
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.
Support. per convention, abbreviated category page names are spelled out.
Mayumashu (
talk) 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support to match related article name.
MilborneOne (
talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (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:Australian football (soccer) players 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.
Nominator's rationale: this a subcategory of
Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne. The convention is not to include the nationality for categories of people by sub-national place and occupation - eg.
Category:Baseball players from California. As for the disambiguate, 'football (soccer)' has been replaced by 'association football' through WP in general, however the term 'soccer' is still commonly used in Australia (if only mostly by those not involved in the sport).
Mayumashu (
talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Don't really have a strong preference one way or the other about "football (soccer)" and "association football" although I think the argument to keep "football (soccer)" in Australia and nowhere else is fairly flimsy - the sport is now commonly called "football" in Australia. That said, to use "association football (soccer)" is definitely overkill and smacks of the worst sort of compromise between the two uses. "Soccer" is an abbreviation of "association" and it is redundant to use both. It makes the already wordy category name even wordier. Agree with removing the nationality part though and suggest
Category:Association football players from Melbourne or
Category:Football (soccer) players from Melbourne. --
Mattinbgn\talk 22:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The category name should match Australian usage, but be unambiguous when there is also Australian-rules football. Accordingly, I would supportCategory:Association football players from Melbourne, but I am in England and should bow any one who can confirm local usage.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (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:Heads of settlement
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This seems like an unnecessary layer. These are positions of subnational authority, so they can be categorized as such. (I originally suggested making this "Heads of populated places" to remove "settlements," but this seemed a better course.)--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming the category to match the title of the parent article,
CSO Amnéville.
BigDom 17:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support move in order that category names are consistent with club article names.
Eldumpo (
talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (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:Boroughs of New York City
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 to merge or delete either of these categories. —
ξxplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 5 articles or categories could possibly belong in these categories. They could be served better by a navbox at the bottom of the respective articles. We definitely don't need both of these, and probably neither.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as parent categories for those using categories as navigation.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep both The NY cat possibly needs a headnote that it relates to NY state. It is notorious that NY City consists of 5 boroughs. Since there are only 5, possibly a navbox might be better, but having a cat is harmless.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:05, 18 June 2010 (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:Grid parity
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: In addition to my CfD of
Category:Low cost solar power, I'd like to nominate this parent category of Nopetro's for deletion per
WP:OC#ARBITRARY. I believe it's a fine example of Nopetro's habit of misusing categories to point out tangential associations and advance an argument, rather than grouping by defining qualities. Grid parity is described in the main article as "the point at which renewable electricity is equal to or cheaper than grid power." However, this category is mainly populated with solar device manufacturing companies that are not in themselves examples of grid parity. Nor is the
Photovoltaics article. Likewise,
Solar power in the United States is not an article on grid parity. Take those away and we don't have the makings of a valid category, at least at this time.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 16:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support – Nopetro has not grasped the difference between a category and 'what links here'.
Occuli (
talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
That's a much better and more succinct way of putting it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Mantain Of course one can populate articles with links to other ones (or the massified what links here). But this is not an elegant way to include information about cheap solar electricity (this is the problem, solar electricity is become a serious risk for other dirty electricity and is more and more cheaper).--
Nudecline (
talk) 06:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (former Nopetro).reply
Right now, I'd say "the problem" is your failure to grasp -- or just give a *** -- about how Wikipedia catgeories are supposed to work. Wikipedia does not exist to "include information about cheap solar electricity" -- or promote any cause. We need to follow guidelines and common sense or the encyclopedia just becomes a tangled mess. I've already stated at your latest SPI that I think you need to be blocked from further category creation, due to your persistent misuse of categories over several years. Whether that can happen, I don't know.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as another junk category.
Mangoe (
talk) 01:01, 21 June 2010 (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:Bogart family
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not an actual family as the linked Hemingway is-modern wishful thinking.
Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (
talk) 15:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - Gratuitous category, any one listed here will also be listed in corresponding articles. Not necessary.
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 07:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete --Friends are not part of family. L. Bacall married twice - to Bogart and then Robards and had a son by the latter who is also a notable actor. Her two husbands were not part of the same family. The links are thus mostly too tenuous to make a good category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:15, 18 June 2010 (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:Lower limb anatomy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I want to include some categories like
Category:Hosiery that have an obvious connection to legs, but there's no suitable category. I could create another category
Category:Lower limb, that would have this present category as a sub-category, but I feel that would be an over-categorisation, and a rename would be better.
Fences&Windows 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Anatomy is a tightly defined category and all of its sub-cats should be kept distinct. Clothing for lower limbs is an equally valid category and should be kept separate; and be in a category tree for clothing? (or something). A cross-reference to each would be be ok.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 08:38, 14 June 2010 (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:Ethnographic objects in the British 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:keep. —
ξxplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: British Museum department renamed, this category needs to be renamed to reflect that. See
wt:GLAM/BM#Proposed_category.
Fæ (
talk) 10:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
We already have the sub
Category:African objects in the British Museum, which will move with the rename, and there are only three articles in the main cat at present, so other subs are hardly needed yet.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The need arises not from the nature of the objects but from the nature of
Ethnography, for which the wikipedia page is regrettably poor. Please see the start which has been made at
Ethnography at the British Museum. The collecting of objects was a significant element in the development of ethnography, as can be seen from the transfer of objects to Göttingen (Schlözer is not even mentioned in the wikipedia Ethnography entry). His role and the intellectual investigation of the Russian Empire was an important factor in the development of ethnography, something continued when
Sergey Oldenburg led the Russian ethnography into the service of the Bolshevik reconstruction of the state. The crux issue is concerned about whether European peoples should be considered the "object" of study for ethnographers. The more recent decision to set aside the name Department of Ethnography for an amalgam of different geographical areas which arguably have little in common except for their marginalisation by European expansionism following the advent of capitalism might indicate that the current way of thinking about these objects - and the consequent
taxonomy evinced by the set of categories used - could be liable to change. Perhaps we should keep the category for now, and review in say five years time?
Harrypotter (
talk) 08:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)reply
As as aside, you may wish to experiment with CatScan. Using
CatScan to compare the parent categories of British Museum and Ethnography reveals 6 relevant artefacts.
Fæ (
talk) 11:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep for now -- It may be useful to recategorise articles by continents, when that has been done, we can reconsider deletion. I suspect there will be more that might go in this cat, but I suspect that the concept is imperialist (or rather colonialist) in the sense that it is about the culture of peoples perceived as "primitive".
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a possible solution, though it does mean that relevant artefacts would be listed in both categories. One for the current BM department and one for the old name of the same department.
Fæ (
talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (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:Mitsui Sumitomo
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.
Comment: Mitsui is a huge company and the insurance company is just one component. I just created a Mitsui category. I would be more in favor of nuking it and putting it all in Mitsui.
Americasroof (
talk) 01:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I would not object to an upmerge. However I do wonder if the category and the article should be at Mitsui Group?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:48, 20 June 2010 (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:Namco Bandai
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 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:Kawasaki
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. 05:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify, if the proposed name is appropriate for (a) all present-day entities using Kawasaki brand (b) the historical zaibatzu founded by
Kawasaki Shōzō. I'm not familiar with the corporate history of Kawasaki, but there's the example of
Mitsubishi which is now a bunch of independently competing businesses under the same umbrella name.
East of Borschov (
talk) 07:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Category names generally follow the name of the main article which in this case is
Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Is there something I missed? If the current name is OK, the proposed name should be also.
Mitsubishi is a different case since the article and category already have the same name. On that one you could argue that the name should be
Mitsubishi Group, but that is a different issue.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The point is, different Mitsubishis are different unrelated companies since the Americans crushed the zaibatsu in '45. The competition between Mitsubishi Electric (MEI) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in home air conditioning markets is a textbook example (I don't recall the authors, but it was indeed a business school case in the early 1990s). They were (then) as related as General Motors and General Electric.
East of Borschov (
talk) 08:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Clearly
this says Mitsubishi is not a single company, while
Kawasaki seems to be saying everything it can to indicate it is one company. There are bits and pieces that were spun off in past decades, and some were merged back in, so while some former parts of KHI are now separate, the units referenced in the article seem to all actually be part of KHI. --
Dbratland (
talk) 16:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support rename given that
Kawasaki is a disambiguation page pointing to, among other things, a number of towns in Japan, it would be more appropriate to use the parent company's name for all things related to the Kawasaki Heavy Industries Group. --
Biker Biker (
talk) 09:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support rename. It confusing and should be fixed. --
Dbratland (
talk) 16:05, 13 June 2010 (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:Asian objects at the British 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:Rename.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistency; all other department related categories under
Category:British Museum use "in the" rather than "at the".
Fæ (
talk) 06:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per Fæ.
Ceoil (
talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support -- Sister Categories should match in style.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (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:Wallenberg Sphere
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge to the name of the main article. The contents here are business related and includes companies, foundations, banks and hotels. The upmerge would not overload the parent category and would eliminate an oddly named category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
OK, nomination modified with a slight wording change that makes it more readable then what has been suggested.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (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:Low cost solar power
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per
WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. This category by banned User:Mac (now suspected to be editing as User:Nopetro and User:Nudecline) may be a good example of how what works as an article may not work as a category. The article
Low-cost photovoltaic cell begins: "A low-cost photovoltaic cell is a thin-film cell that has a price competitive with traditional (fossil fuels and nuclear power) energy sources. This includes second and third generation photovoltaic cells, that is cheaper than first generation (crystalline silicon cells...)." So in other words, anything other than the most expensive first generation cells can today be deemed "low-cost," if within range of fossil and fission power, and cheaper than the previous 'high-cost solar'. However, current technologies now deemed low-cost may be undercut to the point where they are looked back on as relatively high-cost. I'm doubtful that last year's "low cost" design will remain so, as a defining characteristic. Better to continue categorizing these systems according to objective technological definitions rather than shifting POV perceptions in the markeplace
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 06:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per well-stated nom - Sigh. Another Mac/Nopetro special. I'm tempted to sign a power of attorney to endorse any & all such CFD nominations from Shawn in Montreal.
Cgingold (
talk) 12:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as recommended with ca commendation to Shawn for wading through all these.
Mangoe (
talk) 01:03, 21 June 2010 (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:Companies based in Sweden
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 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:Classes of organic compounds
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant as the classes' subcats were already listed in
Category:Organic compounds. Need attention from somebody versed in chemistry. -
Skullers (
talk) 05:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Support merge At best I think one might support a hierarchy level of
Category:Organic compounds by class but I am not convinced that there is a need for that.
Mangoe (
talk) 18:47, 14 June 2010 (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:Supersport motorcycles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category should align with
Types of motorcycles and have
Sport bike as its main article. Having a category for "motorcycles eligible for
Supersport racing" violates
WP:BIAS by ignoring that there are many supersport classes around the world:
AMA Supersport Championship,
British Supersport Championship,
Supersport World Championship, the All-Japan Supersport championship,
China Superbike Championship's supersport class, and others. Note that
Supersport racing not a proper main article but is a disambiguation page because the term means so many different things. Not to mention muddling the distinctions with the several classes of
Superbike racing, because "supersport" also happens to be a widely used term for all sport bikes, not just those in the supersport racing classes. It would make sense to have a category for each specific racing class, such as
Category:British Supersport Championship motorcycles, but trying to lump them all together is meaningless and confusing.
Support rename - sport bike is a universally understood term. Supersport is a subjective term and is therefore often misapplied. --
Biker Biker (
talk) 07:31, 13 June 2010 (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.
Philosophy portals
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.
Courcelles (
talk) 22:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: consistent title format
Greg Bard 02:50, 13 June 2010 (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.
Leftover cities, towns and villages
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 (taking into consideration many other discussions that have implemented this change).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:23, 30 June 2010 (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:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is much more like the standard Israeli definition of "settlements".--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (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:Settlements of urban type in the Sakha Republic
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:withdrawn, note added.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The category was named this way for a reason. Unlike with most other federal subjects of Russia, Sakha's laws do not mention "urban-type settlements", but rather distinguish "settlements" as inhabited localities of urban type (as opposed to "towns"—a different kind of inhabited localities of urban type, and selos—inhabited localities of rural type). Using just "settlements in the Sakha Republic" as a category name would, however, be ambiguous to the historical aspect (before the 1990s there used to be "settlements" of both rural and urban type in the republic), hence the addition of the "of urban type" clarification.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); June 14, 2010; 13:38 (UTC)
Wacky. Okay, assuming no one with historical knowledge of this disagrees with you, I'll withdraw this in a couple days.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)reply
If correct, this needs adding to an exemption list or to be added to the category in some way. Possibly as a page notice so it only appears when you try to edit the category, like when someone would like to nominate it for renaming.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (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:FELDA settlements
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Spelling out the agency name. These seem to be "settlements" in the classical sense.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 01:27, 13 June 2010 (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.
Leftover settlements
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 following will be tagged as "no consensus", as objections were made and concerns not addressed. These can be renominated in a subsequent nomination.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Just some leftovers from
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 28#Many more settlements. I certainly don't know everything about these places, so comment if you see something out of whack. I left alone all categories in Russia and Canada, anything with the word "Port" in it, and anything with the modern definition of
settlement in the area around Israel. (The Land of Israel category refers to the ancient area, and contains cities, towns, villages, whatever.) The
Ring Road includes only places in Iceland, because it's an island.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
That's not something I feel competent to judge.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose The target has a different implication from the present name. I understand that "Assyrian" refers to one of a number of Eastern Christian Churches, whereas Syriac may refer to those who worship in that language. This is an area where fools rush in wher angles fear to tread
No worries. Back it up with a reference and I'll nominate it for reversion.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, there is
[2] (first para under the heading "Where in the U.K. are we now?") though that is not as unambiguous as one might like. Perhaps
Google would convince you?
-Arb. (
talk) 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Solid. I've withdrawn the nomination for that one.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that. Any idea of the procedure for reverting its three subcats?
-Arb. (
talk) 11:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Wait till this nomination closes (just to make sure the closer agrees with us), then nominate them both for renaming with a link back to this discussion.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I am glad this has been withdrawn as "Settlements" is the proper name for them.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment any good reason why the word 'native' should appear in
Category:Native populated places in ancient Gaul. Aren't these just 'populated places' with local people inhabiting them--same as any other populated place?
Hmains (
talk) 03:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
My guess is that the intent is distinguish it from pre-conquest Roman bases. But there's no description on the category header, so I don't know.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:Anglo-Saxon settlements and its sole member
Category:Mercian settlements probably ought to be deleted. The latter appears to consist of redirects for Domesday spellings of articles on modern places. This is largely a piece of obscurantism. I am not voting for this deletion now as I have come very late to this debate, but perhaps the closing Admin might like to relist these two for deletion. Perhaps the redirects should be listed at RFD first.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The Anglo-Saxon and Mercian settlement categories should not be deleted, and they should stay as settlements, not populated places. The creation of these categories is an ongoing work under
WP:WPASK and is specifically to list settlements that were established during the anglo-saxon period. Redirects on original placenames are added to enable the category to be used to populate a settlement list, and also as placemarks for follow-up stubs on anglo-saxon etymology.
Category:Mercian settlements is merely the first sub-category being completed.
Metabaronic (
talk) 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The categories are useful for our purposes for right now, the development of full articles on these settlements is something that will happen in the future, we have several editors very devoted to Mercia, and others who are doing considerable work with Sussex.
Sadads (
talk) 11:18, 25 June 2010 (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.