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. Single entry category for
Intermittent power source. Intermittent power sources are not restricted to renewable energy. While that may be the focus of the current article, it is better included in the more compete category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:14, 26 July 2008 (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:Renewable energy power conditioning equipment
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. Very very weak ties to power conditioning. One article even includes land. In any case power conditioning is generally not unique to the method of generation.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:09, 26 July 2008 (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:Renewable energy in the third world
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: We already have categories for renewable energy by country. And the only content here is also proposed for deletion.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:03, 26 July 2008 (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 in the third world
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: Single article and it is a device used everywhere, even in the US, so unless we are going to add the US the the third world countries, this category can go as OCAT.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:00, 26 July 2008 (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:Energy from Ocean and Water
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I considered this as a speedy for the caps, but I was not sure of the need for the extra 's' so I brought it here.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I can support this merge. I was trying to cleanup after the last failed attempt to rename. So if the merge fails, this still should be renamed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I just touched up the definition of
hydropower and added it to the Category page. Assuming that it's correct to say that hydropower is restricted to power derived from moving water, then it would not include those forms of
ocean energy that derive from gradients (salinity, thermal).
Cgingold (
talk)
10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Hydropower will not be going anywhere. It is simply too notable and well know of a topic without any POV or OCAT issues. The question here is more about these other sources. I'm not suggesting you are proposing this but just making this clear. If there is a broader water power generation category then clearly hydropower would logically be a subcat. I would oppose a merge that eliminates
Category:Hydropower. If we go in this direction, where would power generation from tides go?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)reply
OMG,
Category:Water energy??? Don't make me shoot my computer! :) You do realize that Water energy sounds for all the world like those "free energy" scams that are always popping up? The last thing we want is people putting those articles into this category. This is gonna require some careful thought. Also, since you touched on hydrogen -- as I'm entirely certain you already know, VW (but for the possible benefit of other editors), water per se is not actually an energy source when it comes to hydrogen, since it requires the application of energy (electricity) to split those H20 molecules. So I'm not sure it would make sense to include those articles -- I guess it depends on the exact name we settle on.
Cgingold (
talk)
21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment.
Category:Energy from Ocean and Water is a parent category which consists of two subcategories:
Category:Hydropower and
Category:Ocean energy. There are actually two questions which need to be answered. The first question is if that kind of parent category is needed. The second question about the name of this category raise only after deciding that this parent category is needed and should remain. Trying to summarize above discussion, I see following options:
All I ask is that if we are still working on a consensus over need, that the proposed rename happen. The current name is just bad. I don't think there have been any objections to fixing the name while the broader discussion goes on. I think that all of these are valid questions about the need for the category and the structure but it may take a while for consensus to develop.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:39, 29 July 2008 (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.
Sheikhs in the United Arab Emirates
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 the United Arab Emirates (where both Arabic and English are widely used), the most common spelling is "sheikh." While "shaikh" and "sheikh" can be used alternatively in English, "shaikh" is not very common in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The most common form of the word is with the "e": sheikh. I propose renaming the above categories to be consistent with the spelling in the UAE.
Leitmanp (
talk |
contributions)
21:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom. The problem is that the Arabic letter in question can be correctly transliterated wither way. However the spelling with "e" is now the usual one, certainly in UK.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:06, 26 July 2008 (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:RNVR Wartime Service
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, RNVR = Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve. Essentially a part of the Royal Navy. The category is covered by the Royal Navy category. Additionally the category is unclear as to content for the casual reader. Most people will not know what RNVR stands for and which war?
Kernel Saunters (
talk)
19:17, 26 July 2008 (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:Partition managers
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. Less ambiguous and matches
Disk partitioning article. "Partition manager" is frequently used as part of a brand name, e.g. Paragon Partition Manager, Acronis Partition Manager.
Ham Pastrami (
talk)
14:47, 26 July 2008 (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.
US Navy ships by 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge/Delete. Based on a discussion with the creator
here and at
WikiProject Shipshere, I'm proposing an upmerge of the first 27 categories. The creator of those categories was not familiar with the "Ships built in Foo" style of categories. I'm also proposing a deletion of the final listed category which I created as a temporary umbrella category solely for the 27 "United States Navy ships built in Foo" categories. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
13:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
As creator of almost all of these categories (United States Navy ships built in STATE) it appears more appropriate to place them in (Ships built in STATE). This does not cause any confusion since when a USS Ship is place in "built in state" it becomes obvious by its listing name that it is a USS ship. --
I request that they all be converted as I was the original creator except for (United States Navy ships built in Michigan).
Wikited (
talk)
13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support and leave the sort the way it is. Sorting by the name of the ship and not it's owner or method of propulsion is the correct way to sort ships.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
There are no other categories of the form "Ships of the Foobian Navy by place of construction" for any other navies. I believe that the current structures is
over-categorization (and maybe a little too
indiscriminate, too). Ships in the merged categories would still be listed by the state of construction and would still be in one or more U.S. Navy categories. A good many states would have no notable ships listed apart from U.S. Navy ships, so it seems a little silly to have a category with one subcategory and no articles in it. (Also, to match existing naming conventions, they should be renamed in the style of "Ships of the United States Navy built in New Foobakota" if the consensus is against the proposal.) —
Bellhalla (
talk)
21:43, 27 July 2008 (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.
People from US counties
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:American people by county
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. The conflict here is over adding some additional words in the target. Given the basic support for a rename from the existing name a rename to fix the baic issue has consensus.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename maybe per Hmains (who is perhaps using the brackets convention explained on the July 27 page by Sam in the scientists cfd). It is certainly not just by county.
Occuli (
talk)
17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I almost slapped a CFD on this instead of CFR because of the fact that these are all by state and listing the cat in
Category:American people alongside the more obvious
Category:People by state in the United States seemed like overkill. But, since there is already
Category:People by second-level administrative country subdivision, it made borderline sense to keep it. I think that the same things being said about "counties in the United States" can be said for all the other categories in the second-level cat (that is, Sweden doesn't have counties; but, Sweden's provinces do). I've no strong feelings either way about renaming all of them in some form or another; but, I also think it is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with on all those cats at the same time.
Neier (
talk)
22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom and per GOF. While we here may understand what it means, Joe Reader may not. Renaming it per nom is certainly clearer. --
Kbdank7116:11, 1 August 2008 (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:Pan-European advocacy groups
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: The advocacy groups listed in the "Pan-European advocacy groups" category have been set up by entities in >1 country to lobby the EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA. Their distinguishing characteristic is their intent in lobbying such bodies to gain advantage. So far, so good. The problem is the use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context. It's a problem because
Pan-European nationalism is an extremist political ideology advocating nationalism for a single-nation Europe. The use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context is therefore misleading. The suffix "...at European level" (sometimes rendered as "...at a European level" or "...at an European level") is usually used for transnational bodies interacting with EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA (e.g. "parties at European level", "groups at European level", "foundations at European level", and so on). So unless anybody seriously thinks that the
Europe a Nation and
Quaker Council for European Affairs belong in the same category as each other, renaming "Category:Pan-European advocacy groups" to "Advocacy groups at European level" is probably a good idea.
Anameofmyveryown (
talk)
04:12, 26 July 2008 (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:Laotians of Fooian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose/Keep. "Descent" means anyone with any Chinese ancestor, even if the one ancestor lived hundreds of years prior. Thus, the category is undefining. A person is not defined in any way because they have one Chinese ancestor. Any inclusion limitation imposed by Wikipedia editors will not work because, among other reasons, any limitation will be violative of the English language. The current standard, although a bit too vague, is the better option because the term can be limited and defined by Wikipedia editors. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom for consistency with other changes which have been done recently (i.e., "precedent") and because their meanings are much clearer. (Any concerns with the potentially broad scope of "descent" is easily dealt with by normal rules for categories — if it's not defining, the category doesn't apply. Since being of Chinese descent wouldn't be defining for a person with on Chinese ancestor hundreds of years ago, the problem shouldn't arise if other WP guidelines are followed.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:22, 31 July 2008 (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:Nigerian American sportspeople
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.
Question -- How are Americans categorising those recetnly arrived from Nigeria? Is the term African American not used mainly as a synonym for "Black American" (now no doubt a politically incorrect term), largely referring to the descendants of those brought to America against their will in the slave era. If so, the nomination has an unintended implication. In my view, "of Fooian descent" should be used only for recent arrivals, where their origin is still a significant characteristic. No vote -- I am English and insufficiently familiar with the current usages in USA.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Obama is African American, is he not? He has acquired the following categories: various African American ones; Afro-Caucasian; Dutch descent; English descent; French descent; German descent; Irish descent; but not Kenyan descent. (The article establishes Kenyan descent but none of the others unless I have missed something.)
Occuli (
talk)
02:12, 27 July 2008 (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:African American coaches, baseball 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.
Nominator's rationale: so-called triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and sport - convention is for categorizing by ethnicity end at type of occupation and not particular occupation (sportspeople and not particular sport)
Mayumashu (
talk)
03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep for both. - Oh ferkrisake, how many times do we have to go through this, Mayumashu??? There's just no end to it. To begin with, have you forgotten that you took
Category:African American baseball players to CFD on April 8, 2008 -- completely disregarding the fact that it had recently won approval here after having its deletion reversed at DRV. That time, of course, it was closed Keep -- and this time it should be closed Speedy Keep. (And there really should be a limit to how often the same category can be taken to CFD.) As for the rationale you've offered -- first of all, it's just plain w-r-o-n-g to call these categories a "triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and sport". They're nothing of the sort. "African American" is their ethnicity, and "coach" or "baseball player" is their occupation. Secondly, there is no such "convention" as you allude to. Saying that somebody is a "sportsman" is almost meaningless --
Category:Sportspeople is merely a super-cat that groups together all of those very disparate (some of them barely-related) sub-cats for navigational purposes. It's not even comparable to, say,
Category:Scientists, where at least you can be sure that all of the individuals are actually scientists.
Cgingold (
talk)
06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Cat:African American football players, tennis players, and a few others previously existed and then were deleted. I m not against having these pages as much as having them suggests that there should be a schema Cat:Ethnicity-national-sport, as in
Category:Irish American baseball players. This is definitely in a very real sense a triple intersection of nationality - American, ethnicity - (Black) African, and sport. I agree however, that African-American does constitute an ethnicity in itself, and from that viewpoint (one I didn t consider), I can see how this constitutes a unique case. ('Chinese American' and 'Italian American' are more dubious considerations for being their own ethnicities and Scottish American and French American almost certainly not ethnicities.)
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.
Deaths by type of illness
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.