Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 28

< July 27	July 29 >

July 28

Category:ABPD

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) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ABPD to Category:Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Discos

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming this relatively mysterious acronym to match the main article Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Discos. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Mysterious? Do you even know ABPD? In the original country we use almost only ABPD.Senhordopoder (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- "Relatively mysterious". WP is read by many people, including non-Brazilians. I stand by my suggestion that to people outside of Brazil, its meaning is probably mysterious. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Everyone knows it is about the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry. If you want to be confused, look at the website addresses for the two organizations. Expanding abbreviations is almost always a good idea. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom: see http://www.all-acronyms.com/ABPD. Occuli (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (American Board of Pediatric Dentistry). Senhordopoder (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Custard Records artists and bands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Custard Records artists and bands to Category:Custard Records artists

Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Modern Creative musicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all. Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no corresponding Wikipedia article for "Modern Creative musicians", "Early Creative musicians", or their subcategories. Modern Creative was deleted following AfD discussion. The Early Creative categories, like Modern Creative, are apparently modeled after Allmusic's classification scheme, but in the case of Early Creative, there never was a Wikipedia article (and for that matter, Early Creative is now a blank page at Allmusic: link). Gyrofrog (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This makes sense to me; no article, no categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each back to the appropriate Jazz instrumental category. They all seem to be Jazz, though the category names do not make this clear. We have recently merged 20th and 21st century catgories; we do not allow current and former categories. This appears to be another ofther same kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, all of the musician articles within these categories are already in one or more additional Jazz Musicians categories: Most (if not all – but I think all of them) are in jazz musicians by country (e.g. "English jazz guitarists"), and some are also somewhere else within jazz musicians by instrument (e.g. "Jazz fusion guitarists"). In other words, removing them from the Modern Creative/Early Creative tree would not remove any of these articles from the jazz musicians categories. Similarly, all of the album articles are within another genre category, and/or roll up to Jazz Albums via some albums by artist category. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superfluous categorisation by undefined non-defining terms. Articles are already sufficiently well-situated in other jazz categories. AllyD (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cleopatra albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated, because the nomination matches the main article. Courcelles (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cleopatra albums to Category:Cleopatra (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: To dab from Cleopatra Records. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the category, Feel free to rename. :) Quasy Boy 21:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom. And to avoid confusion over Cleopatra Records. Lugnuts (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They are a vocal group rather than a band, so Category:Cleopatra (group) albums or Category:Cleopatra (girlgroup) albums would be better. Cjc13 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

EastWest Records

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:EastWest Records albums to Category:East West Records albums

Propose renaming Category:EastWest Records compilation albums to Category:East West Records compilation albums

Propose renaming Category:EastWest Records video albums to Category:East West Records video albums

Propose renaming Category:EastWest Records remix albums to Category:East West Records remix albums

Propose renaming Category:EastWest Records live albums to Category:East West Records live albums

Propose renaming Category:EastWest Records EPs to Category:East West Records EPs

Propose renaming Category:EastWest Records soundtracks to Category:East West Records soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: Per East West Records/EastWest Records. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transatlantic albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transatlantic albums to Category:Transatlantic (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: To dab from Transatlantic Records. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable energy markets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, since the merging was already done. Courcelles (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Renewable energy markets to Category:Energy markets

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. There is just one article in this category, Alternative energy indexes, to which I added Category:Renewable energy, preparing for this category's deletion or merging. (I am in fact a huge fan of renewable energy, electric cars -- you name it. So it's embarrassing to see how much dreadful stuff was created in its name. The term 'solar-cruft' comes to mind.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:City and town halls

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:City and town halls to Category:Seats of local government

Nominator's rationale: Rename. About a month ago, a previous attempt to rename was closed as no consensus. Since then the main article was moved so now this is a rename to match the lead article. If approved, the follow on should be to split all of the city town categories. Based on the locality, there would be city halls, council halls, town halls, village halls and many others with corresponding categories. So the parent category name should only be carried down to the point where the various local names are used. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Given that we just renamed Category:Heads of local government, this seems like a good match.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have also added that we may not need a category like Category:City halls, we would need Category:City halls in the United States, since the definition of these would vary across the world. Now if we decide to categorize by name of the building that would need a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearer naming to cover the City Chambers up here. May need some depopulation for premises that have not been used in that way, such as Pollokshields Burgh Hall which is essentially a masonic hall. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not all town halls are seats of local government. Some are venues provided by the city or town council, which operates from elsewhere. Birmingham City Council operates from the Council House, not Birmingham Town Hall, a concert hall. I have no objection to the category being split. When depopulated into subcategories, these subcats can be reparented, possibly leading ultimately to the present category being deleted, but not yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is the intention of the category. So if we have buildings that are included solely because of their name, they are in the wrong category. In addition, having building by name would be an inappropriate category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This would be a much clearer representation to include buildings that are seats of local governments that are not incorporated as cities or towns (such as village and township halls in United States). Notorious4life (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LEED certified buildings

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LEED certified buildings to Category:Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certified buildings

Category:LEED basic certified buildings to Category:Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certified buildings

Category:LEED silver certified buildings to Category:Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design basic silver certified buildings

Category:LEED gold certified buildings to Category:Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design gold certified buildings

Category:LEED platinum certified buildings to Category:Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design platinum certified buildings

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand the initialism. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novel photovoltaic devices

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete under G8. — ξ ^xplicit 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete. Redirect to deleted category Beagel (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a CSD g8 tag on it accordingly. Good catches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Energy cogeneration

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Energy cogeneration to Category:Cogeneration

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. Cogeneration is a specific term and no need for 'energy' as there is no ambiguity. Also, the correct long term is 'Cogeneration of heat and power'. Beagel (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable energy in the community

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Weak delete. It is not clear which articles should be added to this category. There seems to be other categories covering current entries in this category. Beagel (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong upmerge or delete. Good catch. Judging by the category contents, this is utterly arbitrary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Articles have ample categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I cannot see how this could be meaningfully renamed. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable energy standards

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category. Overcategorization. When more articles will be available could be recreated. Beagel (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The third article Uniform Mechanical Code is not a "renewable energy standard," making the SMALLCAT even smaller. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable energy storage technology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Energy storage only. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Renewable energy storage technology to Category:Energy storage

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both Category:Renewable energy technology and Category:Energy storage. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge only to Category:Energy storage. These are about energy storage. How exactly is Vehicle-to-grid renewable? If the power was produced by coal or gas or... Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar tracking systems

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Solar tracking systems to Category:Solar energy

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Small category. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar towers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Solar power only. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Solar towers to Category:Solar architecture

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Would consider and upmerge to Category:Solar power, Category:Solar concentrating systems or Category:Solar power stations. The proposed target is for passive solar building design and not power plant design or technology. Yes I changed the sole parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in this case it could be upmerged to Category:Solar power and more specific category for each article would be considered later when cleaning up the parent category? Beagel (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the merge to Category:Solar power, especially since reading the articles shows that the structures in question don't really have much in common other than the production of power. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this helps matters any, as it seems like to be upmerged per above and SMALLCAT, but I just added Category:Towers as another parent, in case this gets some last minute attention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar thermal control systems

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Courcelles (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Solar thermal control systems to Category:Solar thermal energy

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Small category and overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on upmerge, especially as it appears that the only two articles which are directly in the category are probably going to be merged. Mangoe (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar energy science

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Articles included this category are not about the science as such. Delete as unnecessary overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I added the main science category a while back, hoping this would get some knowledgeable attention. Glad to see it has. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Photovoltaic technologies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Courcelles (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Photovoltaic technologies to Category:Solar cells

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Except one entry, all other entries are about solar cells. Right now this creates only confusion. Beagel (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, there's been a massive amount of arbitary splintering and duplication in this category tree and this is a prime example. Merging as proposed would greatly aid navigation and reduce confusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar desalination and disinfection

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. At the time of this closing, only one page was categorized in the category, which happens to be the miscategorized one, so... — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Solar desalination and disinfection to Category:Solar energy

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to category:Solar energy and category:Water desalination. Small category, overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the articles belong to desalination. The third, solar pond, has nothing to to with desalination and belongs in Category:Solar energy. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar concentrating systems

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Solar thermal energy.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Solar concentrating systems to Category:Solar thermal power

Nominator's rationale: Rename. With some exeptions most of included articles are related to the solar thermal power. This way it fits better into the categorization tree. Alternativly, it could be renamed category:Concentrating solar power. Beagel (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Clearly more correct then the current name. As it gets populated we can decide if a different name is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Solar thermal energy While I prefer your suggestion -- it was my choice over my Category:Solar thermal energy because I preferred to have all human-made power from the sun under power -- this category was created and we should continue to populate it and not splinter off. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also noticed that the Concentrating solar power article has been placed as a subtopic of Solar thermal energy. I am not that of an expert when it comes to solar power, and haven't thought through, so as a soft comment, I think Solar thermal power should be a subtopic Concentrating solar power. Thus making me support your second option Category:Concentrating solar power. Because, if you put it this way, CSP can be used to for both, generation of thermal energy or electrical power. But if you put Solar Thermal Power as the parent, it doesn't fit in. Hope it makes sense. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Solar thermal energy. ~~The only page that won't fit would be the Concentrated photovoltaics (CPV) article which is a different kettle of fish and doesn't belong in the same sub-category as CSP anyway.~~The articles in the existing cat are a mix of power and cooking. Joja lozzo 18:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar energy policy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Courcelles (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category. Could be recreate when more articles will be available. Beagel (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or just upmerge to Solar energy as the sole category content, California Solar Initiative, is not so categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerging is fine for me. Beagel (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Building-integrated photovoltaics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Building-integrated photovoltaics to Category:Photovoltaics

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Small category. Propose to upmerge to category:Photovoltaics and category:Solar architecture. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support upmerging to these two categories, per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do no rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by country to Category:Songs by artist nationality

Nominator's rationale: Per (e.g.) Category:Albums by artist nationality and Category:Discographies by artist nationality. I'm not going to bother tagging the 88 subcats. and the subcategories of Category:Folk songs by nationality and Category:Eurovision songs by country if this doesn't pass, but if it does, I will nominate those with this CfD as precedent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This category is far more complicated than it appears to be. I actually brought this up at WP:SONGS here in early June, only to receive absolutely no response. As I mentioned there, this category is more than simply songs by artists, as it also includes national anthems and folk songs, among others. I'd rather form a concrete approach to how to deal with the nominated category and its subcategories. Every single category and page will need to be looked at before taking any action. — ξ ^xplicit 21:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Then would you favor splitting these into (e.g.) Category:Songs by American artists and Category:American folk songs for those songs which are the creation of the American people? Does that seem reasonable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the route I was thinking of. Renaming the category doesn't seem like the most suitable option. — ξ ^xplicit 03:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not about artist nationality. It might be composer nationality, but most folk songs are by ANON. Eurovision songs clearly have a nationality - that of the country entering them, but a song in French written by a Polish composer and sung by an American artist would certainly not fit the proposal. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sub-cats contain songs by subject, by composer, by lyricist, and by performer, as well as the folk songs. This doesn't work at all. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Businesses believed to be owned by Hamas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an entirely subjective and inherently unreliable category. Even if a reliable source states that a business is "believed to be owned" by Hamas, this is still an unsatisfactory basis for the category. It is only by a stretch of imagination that the source cited can be interpreted to mean that the subject of the only article still included in the category is "owned by Hamas". If it remains, it is inevitable that this category will be the focus of constant battles over reliability and interpretation of sources. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/as-the-israeli-blockade-eases-gaza-goes-shopping-2035432.html "As the Israeli blockade eases, Gaza goes shopping"], Donald Macintyre, 26 July 2010, The Independent.</ref> The fact is that I was having difficulty finding categories for businesses located in Gaza. For example, I had to create: Category:Amusement parks in the Palestinian Territories. But, should I have created Category:Amusement parks in Gaza instead? Since Gaza has a separate government than the west bank? I also created the catebory under discussion. We need some way to categorize the the cluster of new businesses springing up in Gaza. One large gorup of them appear to have in common their financial ties with Hamas. But we can do the categories some other way.AMuseo (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a discussion of whether the article should be included in the category. I am arguing that the category should not exist at all. We should discuss the relevance and imnterpretation of the Independent article on the Gaza Mall talk page. RolandR (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you could just use '2010 businesses in the Palestinian Territories' to categorise them, a la several other 'X by year' categories. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete "Believed" is one big weasel word. This could run into BLP issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the category from the two pages where I used it.AMuseo (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you removed the category tag from the only articles in this category, I marked it for speedy deletion, under WP:CSD "C1. Unpopulated categories". You have now re-added the categories, without adding a hangon tag to the category. I don't understand your actions; the speedy tag was added in good faith when the category was empty. RolandR (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (No need to rename cat to Gaza, since both WB & Gaza are "PT".) Chesdovi (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is not a speedy unless the creator cooperates. (Has to be empty for 4 days.) Categories have to be based on fact rather than supposition. What proportion of commentators have to share this belief? Occuli (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no proof that any of the businesses in the category genuinely belong to Hamas, and even if there was it would likely be yet another ideologically-based battleground over how to present the information. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, believed is speculation, and should not be used in categories. As per the businesses itself, Hamas does not own private companies. There are many associations, society, companies, cooperatives, hospitals, schools, etc., that are in one way or another, more closely or more remotely, linked to Hamas or leading Hamas members. But that is not in any way the same as as being "owned by Hamas". (Not to mention the recently slang meaning of the term "being owned by"...) --Soman (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Speculation is an appallingly subjective basis for a category, made even worse in this case by the lack of any specificity about whose belief is involved. Also, it's hard to avoid the impression that this category is designed to blooster a particular view about Hamas, contrary to WP:NPOV. The category system should not be used as a tool in the various propaganda wars being fought in the Middle East. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, I might agree to its recreation when Category:Suspected CIA front operations survives its first CFD. __meco (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Here I'm trying to be witty. But we do in fact have a Category:Central Intelligence Agency front organizations.) __meco (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Maybe we should add Hamas to that category [^{[deprecated source?]} RolandR (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, convert to article -- This appears to be a stub article in category space, citing two journalistic sources. However, I doubt that article would survivve AFD. Hence I would not oppose "delete". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article, per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chairpeople of the Committees of the European Parliament

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently a single entry category. After reading several articles I did not see anything that says this is defining for the individual. I'll note that we apparently don't categorize this position for the US Congress. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I doubt if even Philippe Morillon thinks this is his crowning achievement. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American businesspeople in coal mining

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to all three parents. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American businesspeople in coal mining to Category:Businesspeople in coal and Category:American businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following this discussion, up merge to both people categories. I suppose that a rename to Category:American businesspeople in coal should also be on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Category:Businesspeople in coal is not yet vast enough to need subcats. Occuli (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:American businesspeople in coal so that it can be a helpful child Category:Coal mining in the United States and this nexus is not lost. Hmains (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Category:American businesspeople in coal is not part of an established coal people by nationality structure and I do not see the need to start one, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, merge to Category:Coal mining in the United States as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to all three parent including Category:Coal mining in the United States. Beagel (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Professional titles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Professional titles and certifications. Certifications are not titles and vice versa, but the distinction is so finely graded that it is nearly impossible to know which goes where. Further subdivision and renominations may be possible if an intelligent scheme can be divised for doing so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Professional titles to Category:Professional certification

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't understand the distinction that was intended, and can't see a use for it. The few entries that are clearly titles (e.g. Doctor (title), Esquire) can be separately added to category:Titles. After the proposed merger these I intend to do further tidying-up and will probably separately nominate the target to be renamed as Professional qualifications. Fayenatic (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 05:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment (once again) titles are not equivalent to certification (some are awards to people who have passed all possible certifications many years ago), and certification is not equivalent to qualification (a $100 framed charter from a local diploma mill is not a proof of any qualification). So, indeed, the category needs a thorough cleanup to separate archiaters from registered nurses. Good luck! East of Borschov 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after looking at the contents, one wonders if deletion might be the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Emissions reduction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Can someone give me a new head of hair so I can continue my hair pulling over these? First off emissions reduction is not really identified. There is no main article but we have a redirect to Air pollution#Reduction efforts. So that could argue that we need a rename and not a delete. Then we can look at the contents. Vehicle inspection which can cover only safety inspections. Cycling? Demand Responsive Transit Exchange? Or even reforestation which is more biosequestration then emission control. So while this might be useful in some way, it either needs a rename or a major overhaul and some objective inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to mention that there's also a lot of cross-over with Category:Emission standards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 05:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename category:Greenhouse gas emissions~~ and cleanup. We have categories such as category:Emissions trading, Category:Emission standards, category:Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States but we don't have a category for emissions. Renaming this category will make the structure more logical. Beagel (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to try and clean it out, go for it with the rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After cleanup I have a feeling that this category is worth to keep. Beagel (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at these and still see a mix. It is greatly improved, so I'd be willing to rename, but not sure how. Right now it includes vehicle inspection requirements and vehicle control technology, carbon storage, carbon trading and such. While some address CO2, others cover more and the range is not always clear in the articles. I noticed that many of the articles roll up into policy categories if that helps. Maybe an introduction with a lead article? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the category talks about all emissions reduction not only carbon dioxide reduction, it should be wider category. Therefore I made it subcategory of category:Air pollution emissions and not more specific greenhouse gas or carbon dioxide related categories. If there will be need for more specific subcategories in the future, I don't see any problem with this but I don't think this would be necessary to create any new subcategory now. The vehicle control technology and inspection is also big question for me, so if you have any idea ... Beagel (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-Black metal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge all. Courcelles (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Main article is a redirect, upmerge any relevant content. Also, the capitalization seems improper. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge – main article is a redirect to a section which doesn't mention Post-Black metal. Upmerges should be to Category:Black metal xxx and Category:Post-metal xxx. Then we don't need to worry what post-Black might be. Occuli (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

MEPs by group

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:ALDE MEPs to Category:Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe MEPs
Category:EPP-ED MEPs to Category:European People's Party MEPs (group was formerly called European People's Party–European Democrats but name has now changed)
Category:European Conservative and Reformist MEPs to Category:European Conservatives and Reformists MEPs (correcting precise name of the group)
Category:GUE–NGL MEPs to Category:European United Left–Nordic Green Left MEPs
Category:Greens–EFA MEPs to Category:The Greens–European Free Alliance MEPs
Category:ID MEPs to Category:Europe of Freedom and Democracy MEPs (Independence/Democracy has been succeeded by Europe of Freedom and Democracy)
Category:MEPs sitting in the ITS Group to Category:Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty MEPs
Category:Non Attached MEPs to Category:Non-Inscrits MEPs (main article is Non-Inscrits)
Category:PASD MEPs to Category:Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats MEPs
Category:PES MEPs to Category:Party of European Socialists MEPs
Category:UEN MEPs to Category:Union for Europe of the Nations MEPs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another part of the ongoing clean-up of MEPs categories. These categories for MEPs by group need to have their abbreviations expanded, as the meaning of most of them are (relatively speaking) not well known. I have matched the proposed name of each to the corresponding main WP article name. If it is a current group, the proposed name reflects the current (as opposed to the historical) name of the group. Once these are renamed, the subcategories that divide by term and/or by country will be nominated for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (and do not expand MEP, which is, relatively speaking, well-known). Occuli (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all without expanding MEP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

College sports

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:College athletics in the United States to Category:College sports in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College athletics in the United States by sport to Category:College sports in the United States by sport

Propose renaming Category:College athletic rivalry trophies in the United States to Category:College sports rivalry trophies in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College athletics championships in the United States to Category:College sports championships in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College athletics conferences in the United States to Category:College sports conferences in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College athletics venues to Category:College sports venues in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College mascots to Category:College mascots in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College sports trophies and awards to Category:College sports trophies and awards in the United States

Propose renaming Category:College sports venues by institution to Category:College sports venues in the United States by institution

Propose renaming Category:Defunct college athletics conferences in the United States to Category:Defunct college sports conferences in the United States

Propose renaming Category:University marching bands to Category:College marching bands in the United States (see below)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per recent discussions like this one, I'm suggesting the renaming to change "athletic(s)" to "sports," and adding "in the United States" where needed, to match many similar categories. In the case of Category:University marching bands, there are a few non-American members, so if this passes, I suggest creating a new Category:College marching bands to contain those and other countries' subcategories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding 'in the United States', not sure about'athletics' to 'sports' . 'college athletics' is a common term in the US. I can see 'university sports' for the world in general, but for the States specifically, I lean towards 'college athletics' and 'college athletes' with explanatory hatnotes for each page Mayumashu (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly every category we have is of the form "College sports," though. Regardless, "athletes" will not change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women albums to Category:Women (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest rename to disambiguate and match main article Women (band) so as not to imply these are albums by women artists or albums intended for women audiences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support What you fear will definitely happen. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: A rename is needed. The proposed name is bad... but I don't have a better one. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Perhaps Category:albums by Women (band)? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Correspondents of Cicero

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is having written a letter to Cicero defining for these people—Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Pompey, Cato the Younger ... ? I don't think it really is. Sure, we learn stuff about these people because we have the text of letters they wrote to Cicero, but categorizing people by who they wrote a letter to in their life is not a normal way of categorizing people on WP. Note that Category:People relevant to Cicero was recently deleted; this was one of the subcategories that was not included in that nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Question: "Is having written a letter to Cicero defining for these people". Answer: It's not defining for the four people named above because there's plenty of other Roman sources on Cato or Caesar. But it is defining for less significant persons like Servius Sulpicius Rufus: the smaller the pool of sources, the larger is the value of each source. Here, "correspondents of Cicero" becomes "people known through Cicero", just like the Torah people are known exclusively through scripture. East of Borschov 08:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep defining for the bulk of the category. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With so few sources on the ancient world, this is certainly defining. I would oppose an equivalent category for any one in a more modern period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Videos and DVDs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: cut and paste relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 28. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Videos and DVDs to Category:Home video

Nominator's rationale: I'm not 100% sure what this category even is, but it appears to be about home video releases. If so, why is it "videos and DVDs"? Videos are a part of what constitutes DVDs--it used to be the "V"--and there are several other home video formats; should this be named Category:Home videos, Betamaxes, Blu-Ray Discs, HD-DVDs, Laser Discs, and VHSes? Alternate proposal: delete as far too vague and broad in scope; thousands of video albums, theatrical films, television series, and documentaries have been released on home video. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – most of the subcats are not 'home videos', eg Category:Disney videos and DVDs and the large Category:Video albums by artist (unless you have an unusual home). Occuli (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is this category? What are its inclusion criteria? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose home videos are home movies made on video (ie. that thing your grandfather had that used 8mm winding film camera that you sent to Kodak for processing) ... like your grandfather's wedding film, this has nothing to do with production video. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article Home video is about the video part of home entertainment. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & the Home video article. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Videos. These are all videos, no matter what their format. The inclusion of "DVDs" immediate calls up the requirement to list all other formats in a monstrous global category name like Justin describes. I don't like the ambiguity of "Home videos" (I hear that phrase the same way the other commenters do), so I'd just go with Videos as an ubercategory--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure at all. This category appears to be for "Commercially-produced videos for viewing at home, but not home-made videos, even though they may be DVDs or blueray disc or laserdiscs rather than videotapes". Mike Selinker's suggested rename to videos doesn't include enough of that, and would include youtube videos and other such stuff wot people cannot carry home. Is there are any way of tersely summarising the description I wrote above? Or should we just conclude that that since video exists in so many difft formats, there is no point in distinguishing between those wot come in a retail box and those delivered down a pipe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Video I believe answers your questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, AFAICS. It establishes video as an overall term, but it doesn't seem to me help us in either finding a terminology for the subset in use, or in deciding whether to retain this grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards rename to Category:Videos. From the contents of the category, these pages seem to be grouped together simply through the format they were released in, while others are completely in the wrong place. For example, the Behind the Player series were all released as "interactive music videos" (whatever the hell that is), which were released in DVD format; Coming Alive in a documentary, a live video album and a full-length CD which released in, you guessed it, DVD format. The subcategories aren't any better: there's Category:Looney Tunes DVDs and Category:Stand-up comedy on DVD (seems like anything released under VHS or Blu-ray Disc format is not worthy), as well as Category:Disney videos and DVDs and Category:Television videos and DVDs (poor little Blu-ray Discs, they're being bullied by the category system). Renaming just seems the way to go. If there need be a Category:Videos by type category, then so be it. — ξ ^xplicit 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Per our home video article, "Home video is a blanket term used for pre-recorded media that is either sold or hired for home entertainment" (my emphasis). On the other hand, a home movie is "a motion picture made by amateurs, often for viewing by family and friends". cmadler (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does hired or sold media (as opposed to torrents and hacks) still have any presence in real life? Does the definition still stand in 2010? (I don't know, I don't watch anything longer than the Annoying Orange and it's free). East of Borschov 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we are getting confused here because of differences in English usage. In the UK and possibly elsewhere Home Video is a term used for amateur videos, it was not until I read the the Home video article that I found that in the USA it seems to be used for commercial videos made for home entertainment. Malcolma (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been speaking American English my entire life, and I had no idea "home video" meant anything in the commercial realm. And searching for "home video" on Google doesn't suggest it's a category that American consumer culture recognizes. Could this be a neologism on Wikipedia? If so, the head article should probably change as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was well and truly misled by the Home video article. On the basis of that if nothing else I would not like to see the category renamed to Home video as it would be replacing one misleading title with another. It seems to me, but I'm guessing again, is that the intention of Category:Videos and DVDs is to list articles about commercial video releases as we do for albums. There is existing Category:Music videos and Category:Video albums but I can't find anything that would cater for example for comedy video releases. The trouble is, I can't think of an accurate title to rename Category:Videos and DVDs to. Category:Video already exists but correctly covers the wider field of video.Malcolma (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and start a formal discussion on renaming the article Home video. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on the last part, if not the first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please relist this on today's CfD, so this page can finally be closed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Selinker (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per suggestions here, a WP:RM has been opened for the main article, see Talk:Home video#Requested move. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Commercial videos or Category:Commercial video releases. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also a name I'd support.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it and sort out subcategories first. Inside you will find unrelated gems assorted by publisher (category:Disney videos and DVDs), distribution channel (category:Direct-to-video), genre (category:Music videos), genre and medium (category:Stand-up comedy on DVD). Sort it first before dumping everything into home video. P.S. Do they still use DVD as medium? I thought that today's home video is more about torrents, downloads, ipods etc. - no tangible media. East of Borschov 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Communities on the Mekong River

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated, noting that the consensus in the previous discussion was against omitting "River". — ξ ^xplicit 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communities on the Mekong River to Category:Populated places on the Mekong River

Nominator's rationale: Leftover category from Populated riverside places rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this too be Category:Populated places on the Mekong since the river article is Mekong, cf. Norwegian rivers that were moved to CFR. __meco (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Moved from Speedy. The "Me-" prefix essentially means "river," so that's a reasonable position. However, our Mekong categories are all in the form of Category:Mekong River, so removing "River" would have to be part of a larger change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Rename per nom __meco (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case our edit conflict bollixed it up, do you support Category:Populated places on the Mekong or Category:Populated places on the Mekong River?--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mekong River. __meco (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cool. Thanks for the clarification.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See this discussion, where I thought it was obvious that the usage of "Mekong River" in categories should be changed to "Mekong" to match the main article Mekong, but everybody disagreed. So I suppose for consistency using "Mekong River" here would make sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Norwegian riverside places

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Populated places on the Glomma River, Category:Populated places on the Numedalslågen, and Category:Populated places on the Gudbrandsdalslågen. "Glomma" vs. "Glomma River" was essentially a toss-up here, so if anyone feels strongly about it, feel free to re-nominate this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the speedy discussion:

Category:Populated places on the Glomma river to Category:Populated places on the Glomma River
Category:Populated places on the Numedalslågen river to Category:Populated places on the Numedalslågen River
Category:Populated places on the Gudbrandsdalslågen river to Category:Populated places on the Gudbrandsdalslågen River

as Category:Populated riverside places shows river names use capital letter 'R' in river __meco (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "river" should even be part of those category names. Most of those that have, have "River" as part of the river's name. Neither of these rivers have "River" as part of the name in their articles here, nor do several other non-English river names that also lack "River" in the name their corresponding sub-category of Category:Populated riverside places. Ters (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The suffix "-lågen" means "river," so the category name is redundant. Delete the word "river" instead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for speedy renaming on the grounds that these categories are misspelled per Wikipedia conventions. If the speedy renaming is rejected they will remain misspelled. __meco (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to main CfD, because of discussion. My recommendation is to rename to Category:Populated places on the Glomma, Category:Populated places on the Numedalslågen, and Category:Populated places on the Gudbrandsdalslågen. The suffix "-lagen" means "river," so for those two the proposed category names are redundant. For the Glomma, the word "river" never appears after it in the article. So I would delete the word "river" from all of them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Populated places on the Glomma, Category:Populated places on the Numedalslågen, and Category:Populated places on the Gudbrandsdalslågen per Glomma, Numedalslågen and Gudbrandsdalslågen. Occuli (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I don't object to the counter-proposal. __meco (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to different name. The two rivers where the name contains an old Norwegian word meaning river are fine. I support Occuli's proposal for those, but per the above nomination of the Mekong River, I move that the Glomma category should be renamed to Category:Populated places on the Glomma River. __meco (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case for removing "river" from the Glomma is not as strong, so I'm fine with "Glomma River" for that one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.