Category:Standard gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom
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 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not have a "standard gauge". GB uses the very common 4'8 1/2" standard gauge, but Ireland, both North and South, uses the Irish broad gauge instead. Like most railway categories, this is better structured around "GB" as the geographic term, not "UK". See the existing and long-established
Category:Locomotives of Great Britain et al.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I just came across an exception to the rule for Ireland:
Hibernia (locomotive). As noted on the railway company's page, the D&KR was built to standard gauge in the 1830s and then regauged to Irish gauge in the 1850s, which would lead me to believe that there were other locomotives and rolling stock classes that were also built to standard gauge for Ireland. So I retract the speedy support, and I'm starting to question if the name change is really appropriate.
Slambo(Speak)13:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion is needed related to the hyphen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~
Rob13Talk23:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think now that we're a few weeks after the relisting, it is safe to close this discussion, but as I am involved in the discussion another admin should do it. I've been waiting to recategorize a large number of articles in the parent category that would fit into this target category because of this discussion.
Slambo(Speak)14:01, 20 August 2016 (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:Electric cooperatives
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: It seems most energy cooperatives produce electric power, mostly from renewable sources, while at least
Elektra Birseck Münchenstein is also involved in
District heating. All in all, at this point it seems we should subdivide these articles by country rather than by energy type. Articles may be additionally categorized by the type of energy they produce or the energy sources they are using, but this category scheme is about the company structure. U.S. states however seem to be too fine grained at the moment. --
PanchoS (
talk)
23:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Merging US Category/Support Upmerging Minnesota but to different target/Would Also Upmerge "generation & transmission"/Neutral on parent The electric cooperatives in the US were mostly created during the Great Depression as a result of the
Rural Electrification Act. Like most electric utilities in the US, they have only recently focused on renewable non-hydro energy and they are overwhelmingly electric focused.
@
RevelationDirect: Maybe my nomination is trying to do too many things at once. We seem to be agreeing on the Minnesota category, so let's check that one off. The rest needs further considerations, so I'm withdrawing the other ones. --
PanchoS (
talk)
06:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect: Thanks for all your input! Indeed, "electric cooperatives" is a widely used term and concept with a long history, while "utility cooperatives" isn't. I'm even unsure if "Cooperative utilities" wouldn't be the better name for the latter. Therefore I agree with you we should refine categorization for these per-state categories rather than upmerging them to "utility cooperatives". At the same time, I checked the member directory of
NRECA and it seems that for most states (except New England and California), there should be a sufficient number of electric cooperatives, plus at least 200+ historic ones, so with some more coverage, a complete per-state breakdown should be viable. There are also
66 Electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the US, so no need to upmerge that one either. In the end, it all comes down to renaming the individual per-state categories, but that's a completely different endeavour to the original nomination, so I'm withdrawing this nomination here. --
PanchoS (
talk)
03:57, 31 July 2016 (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:Seattle restaurateurs
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:Taxation collaboration candidates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus (closing two simultaniously). From reading Fayenatic london's comment, it seems the only way to delete these categories is via a group nomination of all categories that use the aforementioned parameter. No prejudice against a new discussion that incorporates all these categories. --
Tavix(
talk)04:17, 14 September 2016 (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:Aviation collaboration candidates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus (closing two simultaniously). From reading Fayenatic london's comment, it seems the only way to delete these categories is via a group nomination of all categories that use the aforementioned parameter. No prejudice against a new discussion that incorporates all these categories. --
Tavix(
talk)04:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: That a page was (a candidate for) a collaboration (sometime before 2008 when
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Collaboration became inactive) is hardly a characteristic that needs a category. It's just adding to an unnecessarily bloated category structure and long lists of categories on talk pages DexDor(talk)21:18, 25 July 2016 (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:Terrorist incidents by target
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.
That's odd, I thought I saw multiple sub-cats in here that began with "Terrorist incidents...". I agree that we don't need to keep the nominated category if it only has one sub-cat named in that form. –
FayenaticLondon07:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: I think so, too. Didn't check any of them, but in the meantime, some categories might have been recategorized or split. But in the end, a rename doesn't preclude a later split, which I'm not opposed to. I'm not even a big fan of the "attacks" scheme, but it would simply be incorrect to have non-terrorist attacks in a terrorist attacks category. The proposed rename simply aims to fix this urgent problem ASAP, while deferring deeper changes to future nominations.
PanchoS (
talk)
10:18, 3 August 2016 (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:N.W Letlalo Street.
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:Greenlandic political party stubs
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: Less than 20 total articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category at this point. Delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk)
16:50, 25 July 2016 (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:Anarchism by form
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:93s BC conflicts
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.
PLain delete -- The name is a typo (and is a cat-redirect to
Category:93 BC conflicts. However JPL & RevDir have a point.
Category:93 BC has births, deaths, and conflicts subcats, each with one article. This needs to be dealt with as part of a much wider upmerge of small categories for ancient periods. Someone was working on that a few months ago, but gave up at about 4th century BC.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:36, 26 July 2016 (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:Acanthodii stubs
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: Pretty much all articles tagged and still only 14 total. Propose upmerging tempalte and deleting category.
Dawynn (
talk)
12:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Stub categories are for existing stubs. Upmerging the template and waiting for 60 stubs to recreate this category is the typical thing to do when we're so far away from enough articles. ~
Rob13Talk22:13, 3 August 2016 (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 producers
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: Newly created category with only one entry. Does not needed for the category tree of energy companies, no clear criteria for inclusion.
Beagel (
talk)
09:55, 25 July 2016 (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:Songs written by Courtney Harrell
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.
Every single one of her five songs is written by at least one other person who is not the artist performing the song, so I have a real issue with saying "the fact that Courtney Harrell wrote this song is a defining feature of this song." There's got to be some sort of lower limit where this becomes
WP:TRIVIA. I'd also note
WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here.
MSJapan (
talk)
23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per MSJapan. This writer has a page at AllMusic
[9] and Discogs,
[10] but I can't find any sources that might allow us to create an article about her. IMHO, co-writing songs as one of many does not confer sufficient notability to make that contribution defining. Her self-promotional page
[11] highlights three songs, none of which have not achieved articles in Wikipedia (e.g. theme single from Think Like a Man); although she claims "Grammy honors", this is only for contributing to the writing of one song on
F.A.M.E. (album), and not the one which won "Best Song". The best that I can find is this
[12] for the Kelly Rowland song "
You Changed", but it has no article and I can't see a way to work that citation into the article on the album. Having a category seems in effect promotional (but I do not denigrate the good faith work of Richhoncho, who created it). –
FayenaticLondon19:25, 3 August 2016 (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:Songs written by Clarence Coffee Jr.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Reasonable arguments for and against, but there's clearly no consensus to delete. It's worth noting that we typically do categorize by songwriters, so this would be an exception if deleted. ~
Rob13Talk22:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – I agree with Richhoncho up to a point, but
Fun (Pitbull song) is attributed in the infobox to 9 writers; moreover none is mentioned in the text. We don't know what CC Jr contributed.
Oculi (
talk)
11:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I take Occuli's point, but Coffee is credited as a songwriter irrespective of any amount of contribution - and he could have made a major contribution, or hardly anything at all - as some so called "singer-songwriters" do (not mentioning any names!), but are included in the songwriter categories. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
11:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Then perhaps, with the level of contribution being "undefinable", the songwriter is maybe not a defining characteristic after all? I'd also note
WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here.
MSJapan (
talk)
23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Semantics. It is defined that Coffee contributed to the writing of the song. As soon as two or more people write a song together we have no idea or concept of who wrote what. Are you now suggesting that co-written songs should not be defined by their songwriters? --
Richhoncho (
talk)
08:28, 26 July 2016 (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:Fictional victims of motor vehicle accidents
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: That a fictional character has been in a car accident is generally a
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic - many fictional characters have hundreds of things happen to them. Note: the category text is "This category refers to fictional characters that are victims of a motor vehicle accident and may or may not have suffered minor or serious injuries and disfigurments or had died from the accident." and the category has been created with no parent categories. DexDor(talk)05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete With the amount of counter and ever expanding developments seen in comic book characters and characters from folklore among others, this has potential to be trivial. Even a character who has a defining loss of limb, limp, no use of legs, in a wheel chair as a result of an auto accident, may in some cases in one story line/type of media appearance have that as the back story, and in another a different backstory to explain this defining condition that does not involve an automobile at all. In fact with how some characters get reset in time, I would not be surprised if we could find a fictional character who is in a wheel chair in one story because they were in an auto accident and in another story because they were in a carriage or horse drawn coach accident.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:30, 25 July 2016 (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 military personnel 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.
The result of the discussion was:inconclusive. To satisfy those wanting consistency (myself included), I'm going to renominate these in the "Option A/B" format so we can hopefully get consensus to either move the other states to this format or these states to the other format. --
Tavix(
talk)14:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: :to match the parent category
Category:American military personnel by state and the five subcategories for the states of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, West Virginia and Wisconsin (why not for more states?). Some personnel in the California and New York City categories are not American military personnel, so will need to be moved.
Hugo999 (
talk)
05:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename to target in general, and only include those who served in the US military, not those born in Missouri, who went to England and joined the RAF or to France to join the French Foreign Legion. I do also think NYC is a step too far, and so think that we should upmerge that to the New York cat.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: These categories are each part of a state category for people originating from that state (which does not track subsequent movements) : People from Foo by occupationHugo999 (
talk)
21:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename all as nominated, to conform to the parents
Category:American military personnel and Category:People from [U.S. state]. I agree with
Johnpacklambert that this triple-intersection of nationality, occupation, and place is non-defining. However, since some of the nominated categories have multiple subcategories (especially Connecticut and Indiana), we first need to figure out where the subcategories would go (or, for that matter, if they should be deleted or kept). --
Black Falcon(
talk)20:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: If it is proposed to upmerge the categories for Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, West Virginia and Wisconsin the creators of those "by state" categories will have to be advised and a notice put on the category, as I did not include them originally. And should all the other categories have a new notice to indicate that upmerging rather than renaming is now proposed?
Hugo999 (
talk)
04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Neutral Leaving it as Military Personnel from Connecticut or changing it to American Military Personnel From Connecticut does not matter to me. Just ensure there is a unique category to identify military personnel from the state. It is very helpful in researching military history from my state.
Hobbamock (
talk)
16:07, 3 August 2016 (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:2115 films
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.
Delete The film was made in 2015. Just because the current plans call for it not being released for 100 years does not change the fact that it is a work of 2015, not 2115.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment All films are put in the category of year of release, regardless of when the film was actually made. For example, films that are first released on New Year's Day are obviously made the previous year, but we'll cat them in the year it was screened. For this one, it would be a good idea to remove the film date template in the infobox (this drives the category) and simply leave it in the upcoming films category. Then recreate the category in approx. 96/97 years from now... LugnutsDick Laurent is dead07:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL. A huge meteorite is expected to strike the Earth in 2106, potentially wiping out humanity, so having a category for film releases in 2115 is jumping the gun.
Betty Logan (
talk)
19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Unreleased films. The one film has been made, but is locked in a safe, with a view to it being released in 2115. Whether it will be is pure
WP:CRYSTAL. If the category is being driven by a template, then the template needs amending; or perhaps remote categories need salting to prevent creation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Unreleased films. In this case the film has been created, it has not been released, and it is rather unlikely to ever be released. We can generally place some belief in release schedules covering the next year or two. Not the next century.
Dimadick (
talk)
14:02, 29 July 2016 (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:Fictional wealthy characters
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.