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.
"Relatively mysterious". WP is read by many people, including non-Brazilians. I stand by my suggestion that to people outside of Brazil, its meaning is probably mysterious.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Everyone knows it is about the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry. If you want to be confused, look at the website addresses for the two organizations. Expanding abbreviations is almost always a good idea.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:07, 29 July 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:Custard Records artists and bands
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:Modern Creative musicians
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. There is no corresponding Wikipedia article for "Modern Creative musicians", "Early Creative musicians", or their subcategories.
Modern Creative was deleted following
AfD discussion. The Early Creative categories, like Modern Creative, are apparently modeled after
Allmusic's classification scheme, but in the case of Early Creative, there never was a Wikipedia article (and for that matter, Early Creative is now a blank page at Allmusic:
link).
Gyrofrog (talk)22:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge each back to the appropriate Jazz instrumental category. They all seem to be Jazz, though the category names do not make this clear. We have recently merged 20th and 21st century catgories; we do not allow current and former categories. This appears to be another ofther same kind.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: For what it's worth, all of the musician articles within these categories are already in one or more additional Jazz Musicians categories: Most (if not all – but I think all of them) are in jazz musicians by country (e.g. "English jazz guitarists"), and some are also somewhere else within jazz musicians by instrument (e.g. "Jazz fusion guitarists"). In other words, removing them from the Modern Creative/Early Creative tree would not remove any of these articles from the jazz musicians categories. Similarly, all of the album articles are within another genre category, and/or roll up to Jazz Albums via some albums by artist category. --
Gyrofrog (talk)18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Superfluous categorisation by undefined non-defining terms. Articles are already sufficiently well-situated in other jazz categories.
AllyD (
talk)
20:50, 4 August 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:Cleopatra 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 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.
EastWest Records
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:Transatlantic 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 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 markets
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:City and town halls
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. About a month ago, a
previous attempt to rename was closed as no consensus. Since then the main article was moved so now this is a rename to match the lead article. If approved, the follow on should be to split all of the city town categories. Based on the locality, there would be city halls, council halls, town halls, village halls and many others with corresponding categories. So the parent category name should only be carried down to the point where the various local names are used.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Not all town halls are seats of local government. Some are venues provided by the city or town council, which operates from elsewhere. Birmingham City Council operates from the Council House, not
Birmingham Town Hall, a concert hall. I have no objection to the category being split. When depopulated into subcategories, these subcats can be reparented, possibly leading ultimately to the present category being deleted, but not yet.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)reply
But that is the intention of the category. So if we have buildings that are included solely because of their name, they are in the wrong category. In addition, having building by name would be an inappropriate category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. This would be a much clearer representation to include buildings that are seats of local governments that are not incorporated as cities or towns (such as village and township halls in United States).
Notorious4life (
talk)
04:10, 4 August 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:LEED certified buildings
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:Novel photovoltaic devices
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:Energy cogeneration
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. Per main article. Cogeneration is a specific term and no need for 'energy' as there is no ambiguity. Also, the correct long term is 'Cogeneration of heat and power'.
Beagel (
talk)
17:29, 28 July 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:Renewable energy in the community
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:Weak delete. It is not clear which articles should be added to this category. There seems to be other categories covering current entries in this category.
Beagel (
talk)
17:23, 28 July 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:Renewable 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small category. Overcategorization. When more articles will be available could be recreated.
Beagel (
talk)
17:18, 28 July 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:Renewable energy storage technology
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:Solar tracking systems
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:Solar towers
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.
I would go with the merge to
Category:Solar power, especially since reading the articles shows that the structures in question don't really have much in common other than the production of power.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:03, 29 July 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 thermal control systems
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.
Concur on upmerge, especially as it appears that the only two articles which are directly in the category are probably going to be merged.
Mangoe (
talk)
17:13, 2 August 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 science
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. Articles included this category are not about the science as such. Delete as unnecessary overcategorization.
Beagel (
talk)
16:49, 28 July 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:Photovoltaic technologies
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. Except one entry, all other entries are about solar cells. Right now this creates only confusion.
Beagel (
talk)
16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Yes, there's been a massive amount of arbitary splintering and duplication in this category tree and this is a prime example. Merging as proposed would greatly aid navigation and reduce confusion.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
01:54, 29 July 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 desalination and disinfection
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. At the time of this closing, only one page was categorized in the category, which happens to be the miscategorized one, so... —
ξxplicit22:33, 5 August 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 concentrating systems
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.
Rename to
Category:Solar thermal energy While I prefer your suggestion -- it was my choice over my Category:Solar thermal energy because I preferred to have all human-made power from the sun under power -- this category was created and we should continue to populate it and not splinter off.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to Solar thermal energy. The only page that won't fit would be the
Concentrated photovoltaics (CPV) article which is a different kettle of fish and doesn't belong in the same sub-category as CSP anyway.The articles in the existing cat are a mix of power and cooking.
Jojalozzo18:23, 9 August 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 policy
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:Building-integrated photovoltaics
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:Songs by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. This category is far more complicated than it appears to be. I actually brought this up at
WP:SONGShere in early June, only to receive absolutely no response. As I mentioned there, this category is more than simply songs by artists, as it also includes national anthems and folk songs, among others. I'd rather form a concrete approach to how to deal with the nominated category and its subcategories. Every single category and page will need to be looked at before taking any action. —
ξxplicit21:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not about artist nationality. It might be composer nationality, but most folk songs are by ANON. Eurovision songs clearly have a nationality - that of the country entering them, but a song in French written by a Polish composer and sung by an American artist would certainly not fit the proposal.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose The sub-cats contain songs by subject, by composer, by lyricist, and by performer, as well as the folk songs. This doesn't work at all.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:55, 1 August 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:Businesses believed to be owned by Hamas
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 is an entirely subjective and inherently unreliable category. Even if a reliable source states that a business is "believed to be owned" by Hamas, this is still an unsatisfactory basis for the category. It is only by a stretch of imagination that the source cited can be interpreted to mean that the subject of the only article still included in the category is "owned by Hamas". If it remains, it is inevitable that this category will be the focus of constant battles over reliability and interpretation of sources. RolandR (
talk)11:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Here is the source.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/as-the-israeli-blockade-eases-gaza-goes-shopping-2035432.html "As the Israeli blockade eases, Gaza goes shopping"], Donald Macintyre, 26 July 2010, The Independent.</ref> The fact is that I was having difficulty finding categories for businesses located in Gaza. For example, I had to create: Category:Amusement parks in the Palestinian Territories. But, should I have created Category:Amusement parks in Gaza instead? Since Gaza has a separate government than the west bank? I also created the catebory under discussion. We need some way to categorize the the cluster of new businesses springing up in Gaza. One large gorup of them appear to have in common their financial ties with Hamas. But we can do the categories some other way.
AMuseo (
talk)
11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
That is a discussion of whether the article should be included in the category. I am arguing that the category should not exist at all. We should discuss the relevance and imnterpretation of the Independent article on the Gaza Mall talk page. RolandR (
talk)11:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Additionally, you could just use '2010 businesses in the Palestinian Territories' to categorise them, a la several other 'X by year' categories. --
Andrensath (
talk |
contribs)
20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Since you removed the category tag from the only articles in this category, I marked it for speedy deletion, under
WP:CSD "C1. Unpopulated categories". You have now re-added the categories, without adding a hangon tag to the category. I don't understand your actions; the speedy tag was added in good faith when the category was empty. RolandR (
talk)15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete – this is not a speedy unless the creator cooperates. (Has to be empty for 4 days.) Categories have to be based on fact rather than supposition. What proportion of commentators have to share this belief?
Occuli (
talk)
15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no proof that any of the businesses in the category genuinely belong to Hamas, and even if there was it would likely be yet another ideologically-based battleground over how to present the information. --
Andrensath (
talk |
contribs)
20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, believed is speculation, and should not be used in categories. As per the businesses itself, Hamas does not own private companies. There are many associations, society, companies, cooperatives, hospitals, schools, etc., that are in one way or another, more closely or more remotely, linked to Hamas or leading Hamas members. But that is not in any way the same as as being "owned by Hamas". (Not to mention the recently slang meaning of the term "being owned by"...) --
Soman (
talk)
03:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong delete as
WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Speculation is an appallingly subjective basis for a category, made even worse in this case by the lack of any specificity about whose belief is involved. Also, it's hard to avoid the impression that this category is designed to blooster a particular view about Hamas, contrary to
WP:NPOV. The category system should not be used as a tool in the various propaganda wars being fought in the Middle East. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply
If kept, convert to article -- This appears to be a stub article in category space, citing two journalistic sources. However, I doubt that article would survivve AFD. Hence I would not oppose "delete".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:46, 31 July 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:Chairpeople of the Committees of the European Parliament
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Currently a single entry category. After reading several articles I did not see anything that says this is defining for the individual. I'll note that we apparently don't categorize this position for the US Congress.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:44, 28 July 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:American businesspeople in coal mining
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:Professional titles
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 both to
Category:Professional titles and certifications. Certifications are not titles and vice versa, but the distinction is so finely graded that it is nearly impossible to know which goes where. Further subdivision and renominations may be possible if an intelligent scheme can be divised for doing so.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I don't understand the distinction that was intended, and can't see a use for it. The few entries that are clearly titles (e.g.
Doctor (title),
Esquire) can be separately added to
category:Titles. After the proposed merger these I intend to do further tidying-up and will probably separately nominate the target to be renamed as Professional qualifications.
Fayenatic(talk)17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)reply
comment (once again) titles are not equivalent to certification (some are awards to people who have passed all possible certifications many years ago), and certification is not equivalent to qualification (a $100 framed charter from a local diploma mill is not a proof of any qualification). So, indeed, the category needs a thorough cleanup to separate
archiaters from
registered nurses. Good luck!
East of Borschov08:27, 28 July 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:Emissions reduction
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. Can someone give me a new head of hair so I can continue my hair pulling over these? First off emissions reduction is not really identified. There is no main article but we have a redirect to
Air pollution#Reduction efforts. So that could argue that we need a rename and not a delete. Then we can look at the contents.
Vehicle inspection which can cover only safety inspections.
Cycling?
Demand Responsive Transit Exchange? Or even
reforestation which is more biosequestration then emission control. So while this might be useful in some way, it either needs a rename or a major overhaul and some objective inclusion criteria.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I looked at these and still see a mix. It is greatly improved, so I'd be willing to rename, but not sure how. Right now it includes vehicle inspection requirements and vehicle control technology, carbon storage, carbon trading and such. While some address CO2, others cover more and the range is not always clear in the articles. I noticed that many of the articles roll up into policy categories if that helps. Maybe an introduction with a lead article?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
As the category talks about all emissions reduction not only carbon dioxide reduction, it should be wider category. Therefore I made it subcategory of
category:Air pollution emissions and not more specific greenhouse gas or carbon dioxide related categories. If there will be need for more specific subcategories in the future, I don't see any problem with this but I don't think this would be necessary to create any new subcategory now. The vehicle control technology and inspection is also big question for me, so if you have any idea ...
Beagel (
talk)
05:00, 6 August 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.
Post-Black metal
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.
MEPs by group
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 is another part of the ongoing clean-up of MEPs categories. These categories for MEPs by group need to have their abbreviations expanded, as the meaning of most of them are (relatively speaking) not well known. I have matched the proposed name of each to the corresponding main WP article name. If it is a current group, the proposed name reflects the current (as opposed to the historical) name of the group. Once these are renamed, the subcategories that divide by term and/or by country will be nominated for renaming.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:46, 28 July 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.
College sports
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. Per recent discussions like
this one, I'm suggesting the renaming to change "athletic(s)" to "sports," and adding "in the United States" where needed, to match many similar categories. In the case of
Category:University marching bands, there are a few non-American members, so if this passes, I suggest creating a new
Category:College marching bands to contain those and other countries' subcategories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
04:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Support adding 'in the United States', not sure about'athletics' to 'sports' . 'college athletics' is a common term in the US. I can see 'university sports' for the world in general, but for the States specifically, I lean towards 'college athletics' and 'college athletes' with explanatory hatnotes for each page
Mayumashu (
talk)
14:39, 28 July 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:Women 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 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:Correspondents of Cicero
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. Is having written a letter to Cicero defining for these people—
Julius Caesar,
Mark Antony,
Pompey,
Cato the Younger ... ? I don't think it really is. Sure, we learn stuff about these people because we have the text of letters they wrote to Cicero, but categorizing people by who they wrote a letter to in their life is not a normal way of categorizing people on WP. Note that
Category:People relevant to Cicero was recently deleted; this was one of the subcategories that was not included in that nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Question: "Is having written a letter to Cicero defining for these people". Answer: It's not defining for the four people named above because there's plenty of other Roman sources on Cato or Caesar. But it is defining for less significant persons like
Servius Sulpicius Rufus: the smaller the pool of sources, the larger is the value of each source. Here, "correspondents of Cicero" becomes "people known through Cicero", just like the
Torah people are known exclusively through scripture.
East of Borschov08:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep -- With so few sources on the ancient world, this is certainly defining. I would oppose an equivalent category for any one in a more modern period.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 31 July 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:Videos and DVDs
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'm not 100% sure what this category even is, but it appears to be about home video releases. If so, why is it "videos and DVDs"? Videos are a part of what constitutes DVDs--it used to be the "V"--and there are several other home video formats; should this be named
Category:Home videos, Betamaxes, Blu-Ray Discs, HD-DVDs, Laser Discs, and VHSes? Alternate proposal: delete as far too vague and broad in scope; thousands of video albums, theatrical films, television series, and documentaries have been released on home video. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
18:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose home videos are home movies made on video (ie. that thing your grandfather had that used 8mm winding film camera that you sent to Kodak for processing) ... like your grandfather's wedding film, this has nothing to do with production video.
76.66.195.196 (
talk)
04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Videos. These are all videos, no matter what their format. The inclusion of "DVDs" immediate calls up the requirement to list all other formats in a monstrous global category name like Justin describes. I don't like the ambiguity of "Home videos" (I hear that phrase the same way the other commenters do), so I'd just go with Videos as an ubercategory--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Not sure at all. This category appears to be for "Commercially-produced videos for viewing at home, but not
home-made videos, even though they may be DVDs or blueray disc or laserdiscs rather than videotapes". Mike Selinker's suggested rename to videos doesn't include enough of that, and would include youtube videos and other such stuff wot people cannot carry home. Is there are any way of tersely summarising the description I wrote above? Or should we just conclude that that since video exists in so many difft formats, there is no point in distinguishing between those wot come in a retail box and those delivered down a pipe. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Not really, AFAICS. It establishes video as an overall term, but it doesn't seem to me help us in either finding a terminology for the subset in use, or in deciding whether to retain this grouping. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm leaning towards rename to
Category:Videos. From the contents of the category, these pages seem to be grouped together simply through the format they were released in, while others are completely in the wrong place. For example, the Behind the Player series were all released as "interactive music videos" (whatever the hell that is), which were released in DVD format; Coming Alive in a documentary, a live video album and a full-length CD which released in, you guessed it, DVD format. The subcategories aren't any better: there's
Category:Looney Tunes DVDs and
Category:Stand-up comedy on DVD (seems like anything released under
VHS or
Blu-ray Disc format is not worthy), as well as
Category:Disney videos and DVDs and
Category:Television videos and DVDs (poor little Blu-ray Discs, they're being bullied by the category system). Renaming just seems the way to go. If there need be a
Category:Videos by type category, then so be it. —
ξxplicit00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom - Per our
home video article, "Home video is a blanket term used for pre-recorded media that is either sold or hired for home entertainment" (my emphasis). On the other hand, a
home movie is "a motion picture made by amateurs, often for viewing by family and friends".
cmadler (
talk)
18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Does hired or sold media (as opposed to torrents and hacks) still have any presence in real life? Does the definition still stand in 2010? (I don't know, I don't watch anything longer than the
Annoying Orange and it's free).
East of Borschov08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think we are getting confused here because of differences in English usage. In the UK and possibly elsewhere Home Video is a term used for amateur videos, it was not until I read the the Home video article that I found that in the USA it seems to be used for commercial videos made for home entertainment.
Malcolma (
talk)
10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I've been speaking American English my entire life, and I had no idea "home video" meant anything in the commercial realm. And searching for
"home video" on Google doesn't suggest it's a category that American consumer culture recognizes. Could this be a neologism on Wikipedia? If so, the head article should probably change as well.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, I was well and truly misled by the Home video article. On the basis of that if nothing else I would not like to see the category renamed to Home video as it would be replacing one misleading title with another. It seems to me, but I'm guessing again, is that the intention of Category:Videos and DVDs is to list articles about commercial video releases as we do for albums. There is existing Category:Music videos and Category:Video albums but I can't find anything that would cater for example for comedy video releases. The trouble is, I can't think of an accurate title to rename Category:Videos and DVDs to. Category:Video already exists but correctly covers the wider field of video.
Malcolma (
talk)
08:52, 20 July 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:Communities on the Mekong River
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 as nominated, noting that the consensus in the previous discussion was against omitting "River". —
ξxplicit22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Noted. Moved from Speedy. The "Me-" prefix essentially means "river," so that's a reasonable position. However, our Mekong categories are all in the form of
Category:Mekong River, so removing "River" would have to be part of a larger change.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. See
this discussion, where I thought it was obvious that the usage of "Mekong River" in categories should be changed to "Mekong" to match the main article
Mekong, but everybody disagreed. So I suppose for consistency using "Mekong River" here would make sense.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:13, 28 July 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.
Norwegian riverside places
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.
I wonder if "river" should even be part of those category names. Most of those that have, have "River" as part of the river's name. Neither of these rivers have "River" as part of the name in their articles here, nor do several other non-English river names that also lack "River" in the name their corresponding sub-category of Category:Populated riverside places.
Ters (
talk)
15:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I nominated for speedy renaming on the grounds that these categories are misspelled per Wikipedia conventions. If the speedy renaming is rejected they will remain misspelled. __
meco (
talk)
23:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to different name. The two rivers where the name contains an old Norwegian word meaning river are fine. I support Occuli's proposal for those, but per the above nomination of the Mekong River, I move that the Glomma category should be renamed to
Category:Populated places on the Glomma River. __
meco (
talk)
18:49, 28 July 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.