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:Transportation
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 realize that the difference between 'transport' and 'transportation' is a superficial one rooted in differences between varieties of English, and this is precisely why there is no reason to not rename. Inconsistency may not be a big deal, as was argued in the
previous discussion, but neither is establishing consistency in the top-level category. For national categories, the appropriate national variety of English is and should continue to be preserved; the top-level categories, however, should match the main article.
Rename per nom and retain redirect. I think that this is a well thought-out nomination and rationale. The "transport" vs "transportation" ENGVAR changes should occur on the by-country categories, but the top parent category ultimately should match the main article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
keep This is a difference in UK (transport) vs American English (transportation), to which no WP preference is to be given. No good reason to change the top level category just to show preference to UK English at the top of everything.
Hmains (
talk)
03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename. This division by English dialect is unnecessary. Everyone knows what both words mean, and since "transport" is preferred by the vast majority of the world, we Yanks can bend this one time. Let's name every one of these categories "transport."--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Update. In a blizzard of Speedy renames yesterday, I believe I came to understand how "transport" and "transportation" break down on Wikipedia (which may or may not reflect actual usage):
All European, African, South American, Oceanic, Caribbean and Central American nations use "transport" in their main articles, as well as Antarctica and all of mainland Asia. South Korea waffles a bit, but the main article is at
Transport in South Korea.
The big three of North America (USA, Mexico, Canada) and the US Virgin Islands use "transportation," though Canada waffles a bit as well.
Taiwan and the Philippines apparently use "transportation." The rest of island Asia uses "transport."
I don't know what the situation in the Arctic is, but it currently uses "transportation."
So we have six current nations that use "transportation," plus possibly the Arctic. Everywhere else in the world seems to be aligned with "transport." So I'm confident in my position that all non-country categories should be "transport"-based.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
20:19, 3 December 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:People from Falmouth
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:Theories of metaphor
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:Upmerge to sole parent. (I have nominated the other current parent cat for deletion, below) per
WP:OC#SMALL and
WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Category contents consist of a handful of articles about metaphor (to varying degrees) that can better be contained in the parent category, if at all.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
22:08, 29 November 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:Theories of tropes
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:Upmerge This category represents a misunderstanding -- or misuse -- of the term "philosophy" A "theory" about a trope is not philosophical theory, as it is currently categorized. More abstract articles about tropes should simply be categorized in the eponymous category, it seems to me.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
22:03, 29 November 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:Rebels by role
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:Upmerge. Seems to me this small grouping of articles and subcategories could be more simply upmerged, to aid navigation and reduce confusion over what a 'rebel role' is.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, after removing
Brigand (a disambiguation page) and
Cangaço (already in the subcats). The category title is ambiguous, actually, as I initially thought that it would contain subcategories of rebels by the role they played in a rebellion (e.g., leaders, recruiters, fighters, and so on). -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:19, 1 December 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:Symbolic batons
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 as too granular. FYI: I am currently copy-editing the article on the symbolic baton, itself. The article already explains the difference with a swagger stick and with other baton-like articles. Really, we barely have a decent article on the symbolic baton, so a category on symbolic batons is way overkill (also the text distinguishes swagger sticks as having a functional element so they don't really belong in the category, anyway. It's not like we have a bunch of articles on individual famous batons or something. Basically this is a tiny category with no likelihood (or history) of growth, and represents overcategorization.
TCO (
talk)
21:02, 29 November 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:Tracked artillery
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:Film-related locations
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 I think you're right. I didn't notice this other category and likely the creator of the latest one didn't, either. Lots of films get shot in lots of places. I think there does need to be merge, with this combined category restricted to areas or facilities uniquely or primarily defined by filming activity, it seems to me. I'd be happy with
Category:Film production districts as the target, with the other two merged into it and clear description written. I'll tag
Category:Filming locations for this CfD, too. Oh, and the first category should have been deleted, it seems to me. It was closed as rename last year even though the only !vote was for deletion,
here. Otto was right.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:19, 1 December 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:Words about words
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:Lists of favorite books
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:Upmerge. While I can see what the creator is going for -- that these are somehow selected lists of works, and that there is a critical factor at work -- I still worry that it is an
WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE concept for a category. Maybe a name change rather than an upmerging?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to ???. The reason this category falls outside of
WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE is because it's a fact that the articles are about "best books" lists (which means that the Penguins-related articles should probably be removed).
jonkerz♠22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. Regardless of what the articles are about, a category named "favorite" anything is indeed subjective. Favorite of whom? --
Kbdank7116:30, 13 December 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:Former members of The Who
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:Documentary films about guerrilla warfare
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 work primarily in the Doc films area, so I'll restrict myself to this medium for now: but this grouping is an example of
WP:OC, imo. I don't believe that the three subcategories in this container cat belong, as not all films about these three wars deal with guerrilla warfare. There likely are some films out there that do, however, and if someone can populate it with pertinent articles, I'll consider withdrawing this. What we may decide here will impact
Category:Guerrilla warfare by medium, too.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:05, 29 November 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:Tracked howitzers
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:Old King's
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: to provide some clarity for readers, who will otherwise be have no clue what this category is about, unless they happen to be closely associated with the
King's College School in Wimbledon, London. If editors are really determined to retain in some form the schools' own-in-house jargon, then it could be renamed to
Category:Old King's (King's College School, Wimbledon) (with "Wimbledon" included to disambiguate from
King's College School, Cambridge) .... but that really seems like a horribly convoluted construct, and "Former pupils of King's College School, Wimbledon" is taken directly from the explanatory text on the category page
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I've never been a fan of the Former pupils of St Cake's construction, it seems to me to dumb-down our coverage. We use lots of words on Wikipedia that some readers will be unfamiliar with - but when they shew up in blue, readers can click on them to find out what they mean!
DuncanHill (
talk)
23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Apart from overlooking the need for disambiguation, you are arguing for a change in the guidelines. Per
WP:COMMONNAME, we name things by the name they are generally known as, even if that is not their formal title. This is not one of the widely-known schools like Eton (whose "Old Etonians" is a widely-known label), so the common usage in a case like this is the generic descriptive form rather than the in-house jargon. A reader encountering "Old King's" in a list of categories will have no clue from the article what it is about, and this hinders the utility of the category for its main purpose as a navigational device.
The name of an article can of course be explained in the body text. For example "British Prime Minister
Tony Blair went skiing with his chum
George Bush, the former US president, in the exclusive Alpine resort of
Basingstoke" explains all three key terms to a reader unfamiliar with any of them ... but categories appear without explanation at the bottom of the article, so their bare names need to make sense to a reader who has no familiarity with the topic other than reading the article on that page.
The school's own jargon terminology can of course be explained in the text of the category and of the article, so the reader will get the same information without having to navigate a guessing-game constructed of navigational signposts rendered in obscure jargon. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose If "We don't categorize band members by "Former" or "Current" status" (per above), then why should we make an exception for pupils of schools? Let them eat (St.) Cake.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
23:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename or delete If we are not supposed to categorize this way, then just delete it. If it is kept, it really needs to be renamed
WP:JARGON and the ambiguousness of the current name.
76.66.202.72 (
talk)
15:35, 30 November 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:High Court judges
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:2100
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.
Somebody created
Category:2099 incorrectly. If the categories are to be created, we need a bot to handle the creation properly.
Category:20''ab'' should have:
Keep so long as it has actual content in it, which it currently does. If you have doubts about the subcategory, nominate that for deletion, and then if successful you can just tag this category for C1 deletion.
VegaDark (
talk)
08:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, subcategories within a category count as "content", this is why C1 deletions are not permitted unless the category is completely empty of both pages and subcategories.
VegaDark (
talk)
08:47, 3 December 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:Iron Man lists
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: The category includes 3 articles which are lists that are related to the character Iron Man. Two of them are lists of episodes relevant to two Iron Man animated series which are included in the Iron Man TV category and the other is a list of Iron Man villains which is included in the main Iron Man category. The category is redundant, has no room for growth, and only features articles which are similar in a very superficial way.
Fandraltastic (
talk)
10:17, 29 November 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:Horizon League Conference men's basketball seasons
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:Talk pages with misplaced main page templates
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 category is for talk pages having article page, user page, etc. templates posted on them when the template in fact is intended for use on a basic namespace page. I came across this category when looking at Main page categories (e.g.
Category:Main Page,
Category:Main page, etc.). Generally, "main page" is for
THE main page. The templates covered by this category are intended to be place in
basic namespace, so I think the suggested new name fits.
Uzma Gamal (
talk)
06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. The category talk page says the category is needed for the infoboxneeded template, when it's placed on talk pages instead of articles. But per tfd, the infoboxneeded template was deleted in 2007. --
Kbdank7117:14, 13 December 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:Main pages with misplaced talk page templates
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 category is for article pages, user pages, etc. having talk page templates posted on them when the template in fact is intended for use on a discussion page. I came across this category when looking at Main page categories (e.g.
Category:Main Page,
Category:Main page, etc.). Generally, "main page" is for
THE main page. The pages covered by this category are in
basic namespace, so I think the suggested new name fits. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk)
06:32, 29 November 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:Oblique wing
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.
Government-owned companies
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 think a common, generic, descriptive term should be applied to all categories even though some countries may have English names that differ from this. In the case which you bring up, the use of the term state will become confusing if applied as you suggest if other countries, such as Brazil and the US which which have "states" as subordinate entities below the federal government, are classified also per that subordinate level. __
meco (
talk)
08:38, 19 November 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:Quasi-public entities in the United States
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 understand the need for a category which covers companies that are partly controlled by the government, however, this name doesn't sit well with me. And as this is a type of category that would be relevant for many countries I think a name that could travel around such a structure needs a little thinking about.
meco (
talk)
18:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I believe that in the U.S. this is the most commonly used term for these; it's certainly not a WP-created neologism. "Quasi-public entity" and "quasi-public entities" both get thousands of hits on google.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment --If Quasi-public is the US term we should Keep it for US entities, even if it is not the term used elsewhere. This should not mean that that we must rename similar categories for other countries that use other terminology.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think this category can be equated with the above section nominations. Those are wholly-owned (by the government) entities whereas this category deals with partly-owned entities. This distinction seems wise to preserve. __
meco (
talk)
12:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
You really should withdraw your proposal without voting to keep as is, otherwise you appear to be oblivious to the actual nomination. __
meco (
talk)
12:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, he/she can, but there is nothing in their posts to suggest this is their position. I'm stating that simply to suggest that is the extent of their de facto position and that issuing a 'keep' vote is done inadvertently (presumably based on not having perceived the distinction between wholly government-owned and joint public–private ownership as other editors also seem to have conflated). __
meco (
talk)
11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
That's interesting because I can read their post and find a clear indication that they want it kept as is. Starting with "keep as is'" and concluding with "There is no way that the
Category:Federal Reserve (
Federal Reserve System) is a government-owned company or corporation. Its article states that it is a mixed private (banks) and government (appointed governors) organization. In other words it is "quasi-public". It seems quite clear to me what they are saying here. If you think they are mistaken, that's another issue, but not really a justification for telling them they should change their vote.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
That rationale argues against something which nobody has asserted and which is not an issue of this category or nomination. That is why I suggest Hmains's vote to keep is based on a misunderstanding. Technically it's a straw man, except that I find reason to believe it's rather a misunderstanding. __
meco (
talk)
22:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Others (including himself) have previously suggested that the category be merged to
Category:Government-owned companies in the United States. He is pointing out why that is not a good idea. At the time of his comment, Mike Selinker was in favour of this proposal. When you told him he needed to change his opinion, Mike Selinker still appeared to be in favour of that proposal. The fact that he hasn't addressed the other specific proposals that have come afterwards may or may not be an oversight, but it doesn't mean his opinion is wrong or that it needs to be disregarded. Perhaps he prefers the current name to the alternate proposals.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:24, 5 December 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:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W
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 by state category. By state is the established breakout in the US. There is nothing in the category introduction that would indicate why 109 West is notable for this activity. If kept, rename to
Category:Volcanic fields of the United States west of 109°W. Note that in effect this covers all of the US since if you continue west from 109W, you reach it from the east.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:51, 11 November 201--
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)0 (UTC)reply
Note that the 109 line runs through extreme western Colorado and New Mexico as I understand it. Both of these are in the Western United States so renaming would include more area. Don't know if this is an issue or not.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
No, not everyone is happy. I still say delete after moving the contents to the by state tree, or as pointed out late in the discussion to the Canada and Mexico and other country trees as needed. If the purpose of the category is to have the activity for the last 100 Ma, then that should be created with a better name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:42, 29 November 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.