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 clarify that the scope of the category relates only to the United States. I am not sure whether the category is worth keeping (it has only 4 articles, and I dunno if it could expanded), but if kept it should be renamed.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Mangoe: Good point. A rename along those lines would indeed be clearer, and I'd be happy to support it. Your proposed title feels a little verbose, but I can't think of anything more concise, so let's go with that unless someone can think of an alternative. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I would not opposed deletion. On reflection, it occurs to me that the refusal of all federal funds is something which could change at any time, and transient characteristics make for poor categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
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 Indian Wars weapons
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:Islamic 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.
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:Photography museums 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.
Support the merge. Yes, there are photography museums that can't be called galleries, and there are photo galleries that can't be called museums. However, there are plenty of outfits that can be called either. --
Hoary (
talk)
09:57, 9 February 2014 (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:Surnames derived from patronyms
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 don't want to create a separate category for surnames which are patronyms. This would be an unnecessry and difficult to prove hair-splitting for some cultures, e.g., Russian language. Not to say that "
patronymic surname" is a valid linguistical term. - Altenmann
>t16:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh yes, derivation of a surname is a very defining and very researched characteristic. Unlike "eponymous cities" (which is indeed a random trait). - Altenmann
>t04:31, 10 February 2014 (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:Saint Petersburg disambiguation pages
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. I understand the rationale behind this nomination. My response is simple: the category as it exists is *useful*. I did add class=disambig to the WP:Russia tags on the articles. However, as is evident from looking at this set of articles, they are not just about Russia.
Saint Petersburg has had such a large influence world-wide that there are places around the world that share the same name, thus the disambig pages. Historically, it is very rich, as well, thus the different treaties, conventions, declarations, etc. Regards,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk)
11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)reply
How is the category is useful (to readers or editors) ? The contents are not articles, they are dab pages. That they are not just about Russia is rather the point - they shouldn't be under the article-space category for Russia.
DexDor (
talk)
08:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. If there is anything encyclopedic worth nothing about these topics in relation to Saint Petersburg, they should be in an article not a disambiguation category.
older ≠
wiser14:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Unlike the extremely broad :physosophy disambiguation:, this one is clearly useful, being well-defined and covering a disambig-rich subject. Another suggestion: dab-russia, suffers forem being too broad. - Altenmann
>t18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Of course, there is a similarity: they are "topic-specific disambiguation categories". Once again, "bad" is
your personal opinion, rather than an argument. Same for your narrow interpretation of categories. - Altenmann
>t03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
No, one is a category of list articles of things of the similar types that have the same name. The other is a miscellaneous ill-defined grab bag of topics vaguely and subjectively related to Saint Petersburg. Yes it is my opinion that this is a bad precedent and just because it my opinion does not mean it is not a bad precedent.
older ≠
wiser03:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Category:Lists of squares and plazas sharing the same title happens to be another category that muddies the distinction between disambiguation pages and other pages (e.g. lists and SIAs). On Wikipedia a page that consists of a list of topics sharing the same title is a disambiguation page (or possibly a SIA). That a dab page title includes the word "square" or "plaza" does not mean that all the entries are about urban spaces (e.g. see
Queen Square).
DexDor (
talk)
08:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. This sort of category is no use for navigation by readers; it is purely a maintenance tool for the use of editors. We already have a well-established WikiProject-based mechanism for tracking disambiguation pages, through the use of talk page project banners. If
WP:RUSSIA wants to specifically track St Petersburg dab pages, this can be done easily by creating a St Petersburg task force. Its project banner {{WikiProject Russia}} uses {{WPBannerMeta}}, which makes this easy. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete "Saint Petersburg" to mean the one in Russia in this category context makes no sense, disambiguation pages about St.Petersburg should not be restricted to that place in Russia. --
70.24.244.161 (
talk)
08:22, 10 February 2014 (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:Virtual economy
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.
Not sure that this category encompasses multiple virtual economies or just one virtual economy with various components of it included here.
Hmains (
talk)
21:22, 9 February 2014 (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.