Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 15
July 15
Category:Discographies by artist nationality
- 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
More than 60 nominated categories
|
|---|
|
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_8#Category:Discographies_by_country, Category:Albums by artist nationality, and parent cat. Category:Discographies_by_artist_nationality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Arctic islands
- 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. This is already in Category:Arctic expeditions, so a merge is unneeded. The "islands of" format is the standard for this tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Arctic islands to Category:Islands of the Arctic Ocean
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Technical nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment are all arctic islands in the Arctic Ocean? wouldn't some be in the Pacific, Atlantic, or some other bodies of water (like a lake) ? If Hudson's Bay is an extension of the Arctic Ocean, then islands in it are not in the arctic, but still in the Arctic Ocean... Similarly, the White Sea is an extension of the Arctic Ocean, has islands, but is not in the arctic (according to our Arctic article) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Good grief -- what a mess! Why on earth were all of those sub-cats placed in Category:Islands of the Arctic Ocean??? Nothing should be listed there unless it is entirely (or nearly so) within the bounds of the Arctic Ocean. As for Category:Arctic islands, the name is ambiguous -- could refer to either the Arctic or the Arctic Ocean, which are by no means coterminous. I'm not sure if we actually need a category for the former, but if so it should be named Category:Islands in the Arctic. Cgingold (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete since the only article here is not about an island. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Merge and Rename both to Category:Islands in the Arctic Ocean sicne the main article is List of islands in the Arctic Ocean. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States Marine Corps
- 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: upmerge into Category:Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps Reserve and Category:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States. These are slightly different than the requested ones, but I'm taking my cue from the categories the articles were already in. If any has more specific information, feel free to move them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States Marine Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Civil Affairs . There are only two Civil Affairs Groups in the Marine Corps, so there is minimal chance of this category expanding & thus, IMHO, is too limited in scope. FieldMarine (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- See rational at discussion below on Reconnaissance companies, the units don't just make sense in Category:Civil Affairs (which should be Civil affairs). This category is definitely expansible, if their are group size civil affairs units then they have to be subordinate units and formations. Besides this category, belongs to the organizational hierarchy that feeds into Category:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States (which is in Category:Civil Affairs). Again, like in the conversation below, we are talking macro organizational importance not micro. Parallel organization of all the Category:Military units and formations of the United States by branch so that most of the categories are accessible by Category:Military units and formations of the United States by type, without too many categories at the bottom of each article, demands that units that the Marines may have few of but are in large quantity in other branches fall into apparently un-expandable categories. Sadads (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You raise a good point about the branch category. This category should also be upmerged into Category:Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps in addition to Category:Civil Affairs. This way the branch is captured properly. FieldMarine (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The civil affairs groups are broken down into Dets & these are too small for separate articles. It would be like making articles on platoons. Therefore, it is unlikely this category will expand beyond two articles. FieldMarine (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't think you get the point. I am organizing all of the Military units and formations of the United States, so that they are accessible on multiple routes from Category:Military units and formations of the United States, people may be looking for Civil affairs units and want nothing to do with Civil affairs itself. Or if they are looking for civil affairs, and be confused by a whole slew of civil affairs units that make the category busy, same problem with Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps. Because United States Military units are so diverse, and so many missions cross branch lines, these need to be accurately and precisely organized to be accessible from multiple directions. You are getting hyperfocused on the Marine perspective and forget the macro picture, Sadads (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have initiated a dialogue that this category is too narrow in scope to be useful. I also believe (IMHO) that an overall taxonomy that generates many narrowly focused categories with few entries is not well designed. Instead of assuming I don’t get it, I recommend laying out good points so the community can make an informed decision. FieldMarine (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I requested comment from WPMILHIST on the talk page, we will see what other users think. Sadads (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Upmerge as per FieldMarine. Sadads, please STOP creating categories where there are only 2-3 possible units. Any such small numbers of units can be left in the main categories, Category:Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps, as well as in the putative Category:Civil affairs units and formations etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, these categories have more than 2 or three possibilities, they just haven't been developed as articles. Its better to have the organizational structure in place anticipating when you already have small populations instead of relying on massive categories that aren't organizable or negotiable, besides the cross hierarchical category ease of access. Sadads (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's EXACTLY the point. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CIVIL AFFAIRS UNITS IN THE USMC BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE CAGs. There are only two CAGs. Thus unless there are new specifically CA units created, which is unlikely, as most CA work is done by non-dedicated units, there will only be two or maybe three units for the category. We do not need the organisational structure. If multiple CA units are created later, then we can reconsider the issue. But it is unnecessary overcategorisation at the moment. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, these categories have more than 2 or three possibilities, they just haven't been developed as articles. Its better to have the organizational structure in place anticipating when you already have small populations instead of relying on massive categories that aren't organizable or negotiable, besides the cross hierarchical category ease of access. Sadads (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Upmerge as per FieldMarine. Sadads, please STOP creating categories where there are only 2-3 possible units. Any such small numbers of units can be left in the main categories, Category:Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps, as well as in the putative Category:Civil affairs units and formations etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I requested comment from WPMILHIST on the talk page, we will see what other users think. Sadads (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- See rational at discussion below on Reconnaissance companies, the units don't just make sense in Category:Civil Affairs (which should be Civil affairs). This category is definitely expansible, if their are group size civil affairs units then they have to be subordinate units and formations. Besides this category, belongs to the organizational hierarchy that feeds into Category:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States (which is in Category:Civil Affairs). Again, like in the conversation below, we are talking macro organizational importance not micro. Parallel organization of all the Category:Military units and formations of the United States by branch so that most of the categories are accessible by Category:Military units and formations of the United States by type, without too many categories at the bottom of each article, demands that units that the Marines may have few of but are in large quantity in other branches fall into apparently un-expandable categories. Sadads (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Western Chan Fellowship
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Western Chan Fellowship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only two articles, already linked, no obvious prospects for growth. (There was a tiny article on the retreat centre but I merged it.) Fayenatic (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I can't see this needing a category at this time or in the foreseeable future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Infrared 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 result of the discussion was: rename. No prejudice against a upmerge or deletion discussion. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Infrared photovoltaics to Category:Infrared solar cells
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is really about generating electricity using cells apparently based on silicon. So this would be more targeted then the existing name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well with renaming but I think that also upmerging should be considered, which is my first preference. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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 antennas
- 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 to Category:Solar cells and Category:Antennas. — ξxplicit 01:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Photovoltaic antennas to Category:Solar cells
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another one of these odd ball categories. One it is only 2 article so OC small should apply. This upmerge is based on the fact that they are fabricated using standard semiconductor integrated circuit fabrication techniques so they are semiconductor products like most solar cells and also generate electricity. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Rectennas, I think that is the correct plural name, since that is really the parent article in my opinion for this tree. Nantenna would probably be OK with the existing categories, but I'm not sure. What ever the decision, this needs something. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to both Category:Solar cells and Category:Antennas. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Philosophy of human nature
- 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Philosophy of human nature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: There is no formal field of "philosophy of human nature." The informal philosophy is adequately contained within "philosophy of life." Greg Bard (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment So are you actually proposing something here, Greg? Or just making an assertion? AllyD (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (while still unclear as to the proposition here). Hanging anything on the article Philosophy of life appears shaky. I am unclear why the various tags that it was carrying as recently as February (including an Original Research tag) were removed: [1]? AllyD (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The proposal is to delete (I thought that was explicit in the twinkle process that created this entry). I just think there is a proliferation of "philosophy of..." where there is no academic department at any university on Earth. The "philosophy of life" category is an exception, and it is reserved for "informal philosophy," (and I wouldn't object if it were renamed so).Greg Bard (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I wonder if the category should just be renamed (and re-parented) rather than deleting it -- perhaps something like Category:Views of human nature. It was set up as a philosophy cat because its creator was a philosophy teacher -- but that doesn't mean it really belongs there. Cgingold (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would really have to discourage that particular formulation. The catgeory "views" was rightfully deleted and the way the philosophy category tree is organized, those things go under "philosophical theories." The category you want would be called "Theories of human nature". However even that rename isn't warranted given how sparse the category is. There are four members: two concepts of human nature and two theories of human nature. It just isn't worth it.Greg Bard (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps
- 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: Upmerge into Category: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance and Category:Companies of the United States Marine Corps. Ruslik_Zero 17:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale:
DeleteChange to Upmerge (see comment below). There are only 5 Force Reconnaissance companies in the Marine Corps so the possibility of this category expanding beyond that is minimal. Also, IMHO, the parent category Category:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance is a better place for listing the Force Reconnaissance Companies and breaking these out more specifically adds little value. FieldMarine (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)- Comment I agree with Occuli, this nomimation should be for upmerge to Category:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance, instead of delete. My mistake for initially listing this as a delete. FieldMarine (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per old discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 3#Category:Companies of the United States Marine Corps and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 3#Category:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps, these may not make sense as expansible in the micro, but for the overall organization of Category:Military units and formations of the United States. Besides it reduces the number of categories at the bottom of the page from 2 or 3 to 1. Sadads (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment IMHO, grouping esoteric units like Marine Corps Reconnaissance into specific categories is too limited in scope and will result in numerous categories with few entries. I would agree with your comment if there was potential for growth beyond a handful. FieldMarine (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As I observed last time, delete doesn't work. It should be upmerge to the 2 parents Category: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance and Category:Companies of the United States Marine Corps. (Or keep.) Occuli (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Upmerge as per FieldMarine, Occuli. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Elephant 6 artists
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Elephant 6 artists to Category:The Elephant 6 Recording Company artists
- Nominator's rationale: Per The Elephant 6 Recording Company. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Elephant 6 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 result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Elephant 6 albums to Category:The Elephant 6 Recording Company albums
- Nominator's rationale: Per The Elephant 6 Recording Company. Also, there were several articles and categories included in this that were not released on the record label, but were released by artists that are part of the musical collective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Nuclear power stations with mothballed reactors
- 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Propose merging Category:Nuclear power stations with mothballed reactors to Category:Nuclear power stations with closed reactorsNominator's rationale: There's no category description or nothing on the Talk page to contextualize this, but it seems to me that for readers a closed reactor is a mothballed one. Is there a meaningful distinction? I could not find one using Google, either. If the same, mothballed is too imprecise a term. We don't use mothballs.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - While I would agree that "mothballed" is probably a very unsuitable term to use in a category for nuclear plants, I was hoping to resolve the issues/questions I laid out comprehensively in the closely-related CFD before settling on proper nomenclature for the four related/overlapping categories. I'm not even entirely certain that "closed reactors" is a satisfactory term, even though at first blush it seems like a simple, declarative statement. Cgingold (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes of course your statements there were my inspiration for this. I thought I'd nibble away at the what I felt was the easiest bit. If you'd prefer I withdraw this one, pending that previous CfD, I'd be happy to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. On the whole I think it's generally better not to have two parallel discussions going on at the same time. On the other hand, it's also possible that keeping this CFD open might attract more input in the other CFD. What do you think? Cgingold (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe see for now which pot of honey attracts more flies. My CfD comments about a rather complex question for various electric vehicle organizations has largely been neglected in favour of more individual actions. There might be a similar situation happening here, simply because there's so many different things to address. But your CfD is much better put together than mine was so I don't want to apply my experience to yours. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see from Vegaswikian's comment at the other CfD that "mothballed" means closed but capable of being restarted. If so, I should indeed withdraw this.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)Mothballed is not closed. It is not operating but maintained in a state so with 'minimal' cost can be turned back on. Another issue with this category is the use of stations and reactors. We need to clear up terminology when we have one unit or multiples. Further does a station refer to each unit or all units on a site? Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station is listed as a station, but it has two units. So if one unit is mothballed, this category structure would imply that the power plant was mothballed. Yet another problem with the existing category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe see for now which pot of honey attracts more flies. My CfD comments about a rather complex question for various electric vehicle organizations has largely been neglected in favour of more individual actions. There might be a similar situation happening here, simply because there's so many different things to address. But your CfD is much better put together than mine was so I don't want to apply my experience to yours. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. On the whole I think it's generally better not to have two parallel discussions going on at the same time. On the other hand, it's also possible that keeping this CFD open might attract more input in the other CFD. What do you think? Cgingold (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes of course your statements there were my inspiration for this. I thought I'd nibble away at the what I felt was the easiest bit. If you'd prefer I withdraw this one, pending that previous CfD, I'd be happy to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)WITHDRAWN per Vegaswikian and Cgingold. Let's sort this out at the main CfD, if possible.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
William & Mary
- 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 all. I'm making the bot do tons of work this morning. What's a little more? Courcelles (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
19 "William and Mary" Categories
|
|---|
|
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per College of William & Mary, a replacement of "and" with an ampersand. Some others in Category:The College of William & Mary are already using the ampersand. Wasn't sure if this counted as a speedy renaming, especially with the need switch of Category:College of William and Mary athletics to Category:William & Mary Tribe.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support per rationale stated. Presumably the correct name for this uni. uses the ampersand, as the current article page name and top supracat page name suggest Mayumashu (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Renames, But... to better match title of parent article, though is there any reason not include "The" as part of the category title when it is part of the article title? I have the same issue with the structure Category:New York Times which also excludes the word "The". Alansohn (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Alansohn that they all should include ' The College of William & Mary' as the article is in fact named The College of William & Mary - College of William & Mary is a redirect. Mayumashu (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with "The" in front of "College" in those categories with that word in them. I've added those to the suggested target category names.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Alansohn that they all should include ' The College of William & Mary' as the article is in fact named The College of William & Mary - College of William & Mary is a redirect. Mayumashu (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Simple question: What does the sign at the main entrance to the school say? (Does anybody know?) Cgingold (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to guess it looks a lot like this: File:William&mary_seal.png.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I went to W&M and the "main entrance" (loosely defined, as the main entrance would be considered the Wren Building, which is an academic building) does not have a sign. However, all over campus, signs use the ampersand (&) not the word "and". Hope that helps. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to guess it looks a lot like this: File:William&mary_seal.png.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support sweeping renames. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Traction motors
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Traction motors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, this category by banned user Mac/Nopetro has only a main article Traction motor and a sub-category for manufacturers that is also nominated for deletion. The main article does not indicate that there are any articles about different kinds of traction motors to merit a category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per MISCAT:NOPETRO. Occuli (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
Galleries of images on Commons
- 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 all. Since all these "categories" have been folded into their parents, they should deleted as empty categories (C1). Ruslik_Zero 17:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Category:1943 comics images/Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Discuss. A user has created the pages listed below as galleries containing images stored on Commons; each of these gallery pages is then transcluded into the corresponding category page (for example, Category:1943 comics images/Commons is transcluded into Category:1943 comics images. I question whether this approach is appropriate for a category page; the purpose of categories is to index Wikipedia pages, and these images are not stored on Wikipedia. None of the nominated categories contains any Wikipedia pages at all, although their "parent" categories do. Also, I'm not aware of any way of automatically synchronizing the contents of a Wikipedia gallery with the corresponding Commons category, so these galleries are bound to become inaccurate over time unless they are actively maintained by interested users. If there is a consensus to allow this type of gallery page, I'm fine with it, but I think it should be discussed. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
All nominated categories
|
|---|
|
- Comment - The intent was to provide a bit more inclusion in the categories for if/when editors go looking for already existing files for articles. And to do it with in the current frame work here. This also side steps two potential problems: the sometimes hard to decipher file names and the tendency for category only file pages to be downed. And to be honest, there has been a bit of a re-think with some of the sub-pages being "folded up" into the code of the category proper instead of transcluded, it's just been slow to get to the rest.
As for syncing... since a fair chunk of the categories here don't have a matching Commons category, of the hop there is little that could be done to try and sync things. Beyond that, "inaccurate" isn't the best term. Since most files uploaded to Commons are done so as "free to use" they tend to stay around even if not actively used in one of the Wikipedias. That runs the potential of these being incomplete, which is pretty much the same as their parents with regard to the continued uploading of new comics related files. - J Greb (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC) - Keep Keeping these seems perfectly reasonable, at least as an interim measure. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. If the images are on commons that is where the categories should be. Commons deals with categorizing these better then we can, so if there is something lacking it should be fixed there and not here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Hybrid diesel-electric vehicles
- 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:Diesel-electric cars. Courcelles 18:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Hybrid diesel-electric vehicles to Category:Diesel-electric vehicles
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. A hybrid vehicle uses two or more distinct power sources to move the vehicle. Since diesel-electric defines two, using hybrid is redundant. A rename to Category:Diesel-electric cars could also be considered since changing to simply vehicles adds a ton of locomotives and ships. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - this is also silly (as currently populated). The Peugeot 307 is not a Hybrid diesel-electric vehicle. This just seems to be the usual Mac/Nopetro idea of lumping together things which could be X into Category:X. (I am not sure that traditional diesel-electric is hybrid. Isn't the diesel producing the electric?) Delete is usually the best option for Nopetro creations (as even if the category is justifiable, most of the articles placed in it by M/N are misplaced). Occuli (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Given your concerns I'll support Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Diesel-electric vehicles already exists. Such a category would usually be populated by ships and trains... 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hence the suggestion to consider Category:Diesel-electric cars. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, the two categories are obviously redundant. Seems to be Mac/Nopetro again and his endless cat-screwing-up shit. Create Category:Diesel-electric cars if necessary. Miracle Pen (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Either Merge or Rename to Category:Diesel-electric cars. Neither category is very heavily populated, but the present vehicles cat seems to relate to types of vehicle but this one to models of car. No view on accuracy of contents. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:LPG vehicles
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:LPG vehicles to Category:Liquefied petroleum gas powered vehicles
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the main article, autogas itself is ambiguous. Expand the acronym and be done with it. Also consider renaming the main article. A delete recommendation would be acceptable since it is not clear that we need to classify all vehicles by the alternative fuel sources. But doing classifying that way could be very acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – this is another creation by Nopetro/mac. Any vehicle can be converted to LPG, and it is fatuous to categorise Fiat Panda as an LPG vehicle. We don't have Category:Diesel vehicles for instance. Occuli (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I've never seen LPG vehicles called autogas... I've seen it called LNG (as opposed to CNG vehicles) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete vehicles typically have a range of engine options and retrofits as well. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Occuli. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Cadmium telluride
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Cadmium telluride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not convinced that we need to categorize companies by the compounds that they use. If we drop the two company articles, we are left with a 2 article category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – I am sure we don't (need to categorize companies by the compounds that they use). Mac again. Occuli (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it does not appear that readers will be navigating based on companies by chemicals used. No objection to recreation if there end being other articles about the subject, but that seems unlikely. Alansohn (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- *Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:International Renewable Energy Agency
- 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Category:International Renewable Energy Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Maybe at some point we will have sufficient articles to populate this category. But right now it seems to be stretching the ties to the agency to include articles here. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Although at the moment this category has only a limited number of articles it has a good perspective for expansion has IRENA became operational recently. I don't think we should delete it only to recreate it after some period of time. Beagel (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Beagel. Johnfos (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, re-create when actually necessary. We don't pre-emptively create categories "just in case". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment with only two articles (apart from the main one) a navbox might do the job better. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Climate change bills
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Climate change bills to Category:Climate change law
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not sure that we need this subcategory with the small number of articles in the tree. If kept, rename to Category:Climate legislation to match what would be the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Of the 3 items in this category, only American Clean Energy and Security Act is a real article. The other 2 are tiny stubs that should be deleted. (I'm going to tag both of them shortly.) Cgingold (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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:Rutgers University athletics
- 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Rutgers University athletics to Category:Rutgers Scarlet Knights
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the standard categorization scheme of university programs in Category:College sports teams in the United States by college.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support as the nom. favours the standard naming for such cats. Mayumashu (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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.