Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 30

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. Kbdank71 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Caesars Entertainment to Category:Caesars Entertainment Corp. Category:Caesars Entertainment Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the main article. Note that this category was populated by an out of process move. No sense in undoing that, just move this to the correct name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Against, There is no page Category:Caesars Entertainment Corp. and no pages listed under it. Also the correct placing would be Caesars Entertainment Corporation.

B64 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article is Caesars Entertainment Corp.- choster (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Main page moved to Caesars Entertainment Corporation. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I thought it was standard practice to leave "Corp.", "LLC", "Inc.", etc. out of titles? (In which case the article should also be renamed.) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please research the name. This is the second company to use a form of Caesars Entertainment as their name running gaming out of Vegas. The article is correctly named for disambiguation based on the guidelines that allow adding items like 'Corp.' when needed for disambiguation. Given that the two corporations are close in time and that they held several of the same properties, different names need to be used. The name proposed here is what the local rag is using for the new corporation and appears to be their real name. Oh and don't forget that these are not the only corporations to use this name. Finally, it was a mess to clear up the articles after someone moved the corporation to the undisambiguated name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked the name again on the company web site which still has a few problems. They appear to be using Caesars Entertainment Corporation which if correct would say that the page and the category should use that form. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. In that case, Support. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did research it, but the one that purposed the merger failed to realize that the Caesars Entertainment, Inc did not use the Category page Caesars Entertainment and that Caesars Entertainment Corporation (formerly Harrah's Entertainment) is a successor to Caesars Entertainment, Inc, Since Harrah's bought Caesars in 2005 and renamed the company to focus on the brand Caesars. Also even though Harrah's said it was switching to Corp. I have found pages on the website that show it as Inc.^[1] & ^[2] B64 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not try this page. Google results for the old company name are not a help in determining the name of the current corporation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't we use the press release which lists it as Caesars Entertainment Corporation as the valid source. As I said the first source was the local rag which apparently got this wrong. When editors start moving articles and categories around as soon as an announcement is made it usually causes problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Kbdank71 17:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian-language operettas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Italian-language operas and Category:Operettas. Overcategorization. We already have a well-populated (482) Category:Italian-language operas. Operetta, despite being an Italian word, is a rare genre of opera in Italian and there is only one article in this cat. If every genre of opera was subdivided by language we would have several hundred extra cats, very few of them with significant populations. Kleinzach 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – can the nom not gather together these 'foo-language operattas' into a single nom? Is the eventual nom going to be an upmerge of all 'foo-language operattas' into Category:Operettas and 'foo-language operas' or is it more complicated? Occuli (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I did it pragmatically, cat by cat, because at least one of the (unnominated) items in the set looked independently viable. But perhaps you are right and it would be easier to take them all together? In that case, how could we group them? How is that done? --Kleinzach 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. The Cfds in question are all on this page. --Kleinzach 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an operetta in English (or German) is to get a subcat, it sounds as if 'Operettas by language' is viable. It would be easier to insist that Category:Operettas should not be subcatted at all. Occuli (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-language operettas ( (39 articles) was specially created for a sizable and distinct sub-genre of works created in Britain and north America. We couldn't call them 'English operettas' (omitting the Americans), nor could we call it 'Broadway operettas' (omitting the London ones etc) so it was called 'English-language'. It was a one-off, unintended to launch a series of 'foo-language operettas'. Unfortunately other editors, unfamiliar with the subject, made the assumption that if there were 'English-language operettas', then there had to be Italian, Russian, French etc. (I opted to nominate these cats one by one considering this, and also out of a general desire to keep a complex subject as simple as possible) --Kleinzach 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Matches all other categories in Category:Operettas. There is a sizeable and distinct group of operettas in languages other than English. Any category that has been subcategorized in one language should be subcategorized by all of the languages in the category. This is standard for Wikipedia, and logical and most useful for the reader. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Softlavender. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Softlavender Johnbod (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Softlavender. We have a categorization scheme, it works, I see no reason to mess it up. Roscelese (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Gießen => Giessen, and do not rename the other direction. This was not an easy call. Something needs to change—either the University of Giessen categories or the city of Gießen categories. And there's no one who supports having the categories out of step with each other. A slight majority of commenters here and in the speedy nomination favor the -ss- approach, and the university name makes it clear that the rename is plausible. So I'm going with that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose rename Category:Gießen to Category:Giessen
• Propose rename Category:People from Gießen to Category:People from Giessen

added subsequently:

• Propose rename Category:People from the District of Gießen to Category:People from the District of Giessen

Nominator's rationale: The original Speedy nomination was to rename three sub-categories in the Gießen category tree, by replacing the "ss" with "ß". This would have been consistent with the parent category Category:Gießen. However, the letter ß is a ligature typically used in the German alphabet in place of a double "s", but is not used in English and is probably unknown to the many (if not a majority) of those using English Wikipedia. Accordingly, it is proposed that the parent category (and a subcategory using the ß ligature) be renamed. Giessen appears to be the accepted spelling of the city in English. Davshul (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the list a third category which includes the word Gießen. Davshul (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think if I had my way I would say we would not use the ß in the English Wikipedia in articles or categories, but I am a little bit concerned here that if we only rename the categories will be creating a difference between what the articles use (Gießen, etc.) and what the category structure uses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If and when the change of name is agreed the articles' names can easily be moved and the articles modified slightly to account for the new article name. The article University of Gießen was only recently moved from University of Giessen, just before the category nomination, without any discussion. Davshul (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and replace any occurrences of ß with ss in any names (article or category). An umlaut is OK but not a ß (in English). Occuli (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and rationale brought up at Speedy for "Giessen" over eszett. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As much as I hate to have special characters in article titles, the title Gießen is the proper spelling with the ligature included and we should match that throughout the category structure to match the article title. Cutting and pasting the article title to a corresponding category name is simple enough to do. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've restored the status quo ante on the University of Giessen article as such a change should be discussed first and universities named after cities & towns often do wind up using different versions of the name from their city/town in the name they use in English - Peking University is one of the best known. I'm not sure if we've ever really settled the use of ß in article titles - a quick glance suggests that the forum it comes up in tends to predetermine the outcome of any discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alansohn. If you want to propose moving the article, the place for that is on the article's talk page. Until then, the category name should match the title of its main article. Jafeluv (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The name of the city is Gießen. You could argue that I was wrong with saying "University of Gießen" when somehow that is spelled with double-S, but under no circumstances can it be argued that the city is called "Giessen". This has also been thrashed out at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. Jared Preston (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is not really what the "actual" name of the place is, but what is the name of the place most commonly used in English-language sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator. The letter ß is not normally used in English, and per WP:COMMONNAME we use the common English-language name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Downtown Core (Singapore). The article should change as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Downtown Core to something less ambiguous

Nominator's rationale: Rename as ambiguous. Too many areas have a downtown core. Better to rename to Category:Downtown Core Planning Area or Category:Downtown Core (Singapore). The former matches what is used on commons and best describes the name of the area. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't we also need to rename the parent article to Downtown Core (Singapore)? Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but categories have more problems with ambiguous names. But it can be renamed after this if we decide it is needed and then we have two choices for the name. WP:RM is backlogged about 40 days, so a nomination there will take us into next year. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support highly ambiguous. Prefer "Downtown Core (Singapore)". I would also suggest renaming the article, as it will not be primary usage, but only local usage. "downtown core" should just redirect to the downtown article. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above discussion to Category:Downtown Core (Singapore) to resolve ambiguity. (I do think it is funny how the only disambiguation hat on Downtown Core is currently one to the downtown core of Billings, Montana.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Wikipedia non-free audio samples per the parent categories. Consistency is not present in these category names, so I took the simplest change possible. I recommend a much broader nomination to settle the differences.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-free audio samples to Category:Wikipedia non-free audio files or Category:Wikipedia non-free audio samples

Nominator's rationale: The "Wikipedia" is needed to clearly identify this as a high-level project category which should not contain any mainspace content pages. The top-level parent category for sounds is Category:Wikipedia audio files, so "audio samples" should be changed to "audio files" for consistency unless there is some copyright-related reason to use "samples". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Seems a trivial change and consistancy isn't there for Wikipedia quantifier. The use of Wikipedia was questioned way back in titles like this and, IMO a completely flawed logic of naming conventions (the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories) was applied. How is is confusing. Non-free audio can never be a content category. This change is also not consistent with Category:Non-free logos for example. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct that consistency isn't there (yet), but it never will be attained if a present lack of consistency is used as a counter-argument to renaming. Also, considering that the parent category of this page is Wikipedia non-free sounds, whose parent category is Wikipedia audio files, whose parent category is Wikipedia media files ... I think a convention exists in this particular case.

  The change itself may be relatively minor but, then again, performing the change is also a minor/trivial matter. In addition, while the logic behind the convention—"categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories"—may or may not be flawed (personally, I do not think that it is), it does currently have consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I hate meaningless disputes like this but note that Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds was originally at Category:Non-free sounds. Can you point me to a rationale for that move? I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia quantifier just stemmed from "Wikipedia maintenance" which obviously couldn't be named "Maintenance". One of the other reasons I'm objecting is because "Wikipedia non-free audio" sounds possessive like the non-free audio belongs to Wikipedia. Personally I think the current is the best option unless you make a Maintenance namespace. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a small world... :) Category:Non-free sounds was renamed because of a discussion (here) that I initiated almost one year ago. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to Category:Wikipedia files with non-free audio samples per Uzma Gamal below. The files are Wikipedia's, but the audio samples contained therein are not makes a lot of sense. (although I do like the idea of a maintenance namespace...) --Kbdank71 14:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To Wikipedia or not to Wikipedia:

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedia files with non-free audio samples. - I looked over all categories having non-free and/or not Wikipedia per my above list post. The proposed change is consistent with Categories having both non-free and Wikipedia in their name. The files are Wikipedia's, but the audio samples contained therein are not. The Wikipedia qualifier is not for the benefit of you and me, who are in the know. The Wikipedia quantifier is needed to alert non-hip Wikipedians (e.g., newbies) to the fact that the category is an administration category and not an article category. Plus, the use of the Wikipedia quantifier is consistent with both parent categories: Wikipedia audio files | Wikipedia non-free content. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Kbdank71 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds to Category:Wikipedia audio files and Category:Wikipedia non-free content

Nominator's rationale: This category is an unnecessary layer between Category:Non-free audio samples (nominated for renaming above) and Category:Wikipedia audio files and Category:Wikipedia non-free content, and I think its contents (1 subcategory) should be upmerged. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Correct my if I'm wrong, but in theory all of our free sounds should be on commons, so it should be implied that any such content on Wikipedia is non-free without needing to identify it as such, at least in the title. VegaDark (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I know, all of our free audio files are on the Commons. However, featured sounds (even though the actual files are on the Commons) are still categorized on Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes, forgot about that. Any particular reason we do that? In any case, your proposal seems reasonable. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, really, since Portal:Featured sounds contains a comprehensive and much more useful listing. Perhaps it is so that sounds will not be missing from Category:Featured content... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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; feel free to start a discussion that proposes deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arabian people of Persian descent to Category:Arab people of Iranian descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main categories are Category:Arab people and Category:People of Iranian descent. TM 14:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, to match head article. It is also clear from contents of the category and its sub-categories that it relates to Arab people generally, not just Arabian people (those pertaining to the Arabian peninsula). JackJud (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly delete We do have an article on Iranian Arabs but if I follow it correctly it's actually about Arabs who happen to live in Iran, making the category perhaps "Iranian people of Arabic descent". I also note that judging from some of the entries there is confusion about exactly who ought be in this category. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Also, this category does not seem to be talking about Iranian Arabs, but rather the opposite i.e. Arabs who are of Persian/Iranian descent. Given the historical link between Arabia and Persia, I'd say there was significant migration from Persia to the former. Mar4d (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the way we define Arab, my sense is that it and Persian are mutually exclusive. That article speaks of Arabs who live in Iran but it consistently otherwise excludes the Farsi-speaking Persians/Iranians. If we mean "Arabian" to be "resident of Arabia" then I think all the subcategories ought to be pushed up into Category:People of Iranian descent. At least some of the members do appear to be Arabs who lived in Persia, e.g. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani. On the other hand we have someone like Bashar ibn Burd who is clearly a Persian living in (to stretch a border- Baghdad?) Arabia. I'm vaguely OK with substituting "Iran" for "Persia" but the categorization in the whole is ambiguous. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, tag with cat diffuse. Kbdank71 15:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:University of Alaska alumni to Category:University of Alaska Fairbanks alumni

Nominator's rationale: merge - Parent article redirects to University of Alaska System, an administrative unit. Diplomas pre-1975 may state "University of Alaska," but it's the same institution as the University of Alaska Fairbanks.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless the nom can explain what is to be done with Category:University of Alaska Anchorage alumni. Occuli (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, I was limited from posting a longer explanation. Now that I think about it, this category can be useful as a catch-all. However, it's mostly being used by "lazy" editors for persons who graduated from the University of Alaska Fairbanks pre-1975, before the creation of the University of Alaska Anchorage and University of Alaska Juneau (now Southeast), when the same institution was known as (and the diplomas read) the "University of Alaska." The page "University of Alaska" redirects to University of Alaska System, an adminstrative bureacracy which (to the very best of my knowledge) awards no diplomas. They carry out the administration of statewide public higher education as "ordained" under Sections 2 and 3, Article 7 of the Alaska Constitution.

Not only is UAS not covered by a separate category, but neither is Prince William Sound Community College in Valdez, which is an actual community college and not a branch campus of one of the three main campuses, and enjoys a degree of autonomy as a result. Some graduates could also conceivably not fit in a specific campus category, despite attending those campuses. To keep from you having to take all day to read this, some housekeeping would probably work, though some of it borders on doing other people's jobs for them.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Having a general "UofA" category as a parent for the more specific ones is perfectly acceptable way of organising things; a similar setup exists with, for example, Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford and Category:Alumni of the University of London. It may help to put a {{Category diffuse}} tag in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. It's unfortunate when a category intersects two sets of common categories that have different naming conventions. Category:Alaska State Senators does match the other US state senator categories, even though it doesn't match the other Alaska officials categories. Sometimes it's impossible to have consistency with all of the parent/sibling categories (unless you want to nominate the Alaska categories for renaming, that is). Kbdank71 15:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alaska State Senators to Category:Members of the Alaska Senate

Nominator's rationale: rename - Parent article changed from Alaska State Senate to Alaska Senate; in line with Category:Members of the Alaska Legislature and Category:Members of the Alaska House of Representatives.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, unless we're going to change all of the subcategories of Category:State senators of the United States. "FOO State Senators" is the current standard format for each of the 50 categories. That said, I may not be averse to changing all of them, but it would obviously require a broader nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Good Ol’factory, "Foo State Senators" is current convention, and AFAIK it also fits WP:COMMONNAME -- I am not an American, but usage I am familiar with is that "X was a Foo Sate Senator", not "X was a Member of the Alaska Senate". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever reason, I was limited from posting a longer explanation. The pages Alaska State Senate and Category:Alaska State Senators were created at around the same time in late 2004. My best guess is that someone created a bunch of pages following an election, and did not realize that the institution of a Senate in Alaska actually predates statehood (and is close to celebrating its 100th anniversary, in fact). Only in the past year or two have articles begun to be written about territorial politicians to any great degree, and the need to distinguish between territorial and state legislatures (and other offices) has become apparent.
  • In Alaska, we have a common expression: "We don't care how they do it Outside." I've never even noticed how any other state may have their pages organized. I just know that with the pages pertaining to Alaska, we have an apparent anachronism, if you look at it in the context of the following categories:
    • Category:Members of the Alaska Legislature
    • Category:Members of the Alaska Territorial Legislature
    • Category:Presidents of the Alaska Senate
    • Category:Members of the Alaska House of Representatives
    • Category:Speakers of the Alaska House of Representatives
  • The related non-category pages all follow this same convention as well. This category alone stands out like a sore thumb when placed into this context. Like I said, I haven't paid one bit of attention to how it's done with any other state. I perhaps had a notion previously that Category:Members of the Alaska Territorial Legislature may have helped the problem , but it's being used more as a supplemental category, rather than to segregate territorial from state officeholders. Territorial senators are apt to be categorized as equals to state senators, and Category:Presidents of the Alaska Senate implies that there is no distinction, and that category page includes at least one territorial senate president.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (changed from above). Well—this extended explanation convinced me. I agree that it's a good idea if it includes members of the Senate from the territorial period. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a quick search on other states' category pages and realized I may have exposed a peculiarity about Alaska. Most United States can't claim as long-lasting or significant pre-statehood history under United States occupation or rule as Alaska can. It was only in 2005 that the state of Alaska outdistanced the territory in age. It will take until 2050 for Alaska to outdistance the time spent from purchase to statehood. In the discussion to create Category:Members of the Alaska Territorial Legislature about 11 months ago, I believe someone other than myself mentioned that "Alaska State Senators" sounded out of context given that there was also a territorial legislature. I certainly didn't realize that this was a convention used for every state, and I would have to say that applied to other posters as well.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Every entry in the parent Category:State senators of the United States is in the form of "Foo State Senators", regardless of the presence of the word "State" in the article title. The word "State" provides greater clarity to avoid confusion with members of the United States Senate representing the state. Unless we make the change for all U.S. states and territories there appears to be no argument that Alaska should not follow a well-established standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <<<The word "State" provides greater clarity to avoid confusion with members of the United States Senate representing the state.>>> This will partially rehash and hope to further clarify what I've already written. I was actually unaware of that prior to this proposal. My motivation for this goes back to a discussion held nearly a year ago regarding creating category pages for territorial legislatures. The consensus was that "State Senators" sounds awkward in the cases of those states which had a pre-statehood legislature or legislatures with significant or notable history, and Alaska is certainly one of those states. The thought of that discussion has been on the back burner ever since. I suppose that this could very well head down the path of openly questioning the naming convention. I'm not so sure I have the time or inclination to shepherd such an effort.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. There's no reason to treat Alaska differently than other states, and the current name is the most concise and clear. The term "member", furthermore, is typically applied to legislators in the lower house of a legislature. Alaska's pre-statehood territorial legislature is not unique, even if it existed longer than other territorial governments, and it's certainly not relevant to whether a category expressly reserved for state legislators should be renamed. If state and territorial officials aren't being kept separate at present, that should be fixed. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Kbdank71 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French-language operettas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Upmerge to Category:French-language operas and Category:Operettas.

This cat was created on 17 October. (Prior to that the articles were in Category:French-language operas.) Operetta is a genre of opera, both as published generally, and as organized on WP.

For French opera, we have a number of specific, creator-defined genre cats (many of them associated with Offenbach's designations, see here). In the case of Category:French-language operettas it's not clear what is included in the cat and what isn't. Are early forms in, or only later works (Hahn/Messager etc)? Is a 'French-language operetta' equivalent to an opérette or applied more widely?

I recommend restoring this particular set of articles to Category:French-language operas and deleting Category:French-language operettas. (An alternative would be to rename it as Category:Opérettes, a cat which might have been created anyway.) Kleinzach 09:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless someone is willing to go into operetta and remove all references to Jacques Offenbach. We at present more or less define French operetta according to his works, so I have a hard time understanding why Orpheus in the Underworld for instance is by exclusion being claimed not to be an operetta. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus in the Underworld is an opéra bouffe or opéra féerie in its revised version. (These are early forms of operetta by one definition.) But that's hardly relevant. The problem here is overcategorization. --Kleinzach 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we identify Opéra bouffe as "a genre of late 19th-century French operetta", why shouldn't these works be categorized as operettas? Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not indeed! But we are discussing Category:French-language operettas not Category:Operettas. --Kleinzach 05:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operettas and by extension Category:French-language operettas currently subsumes all of the French subtypes of operetta. If you wish to create subcategories, or subsubcategories, for the subtypes, please do so; so far, no one has deemed that necessary. There is no reason to remove a subcategory which is as legitimate and logical and helpful as all other "by language" subcategories throughout Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I'm not sure that the nom means to say 'delete'. At present L'amour masqué (say) is in Category:French-language operettas which puts it in both Category:French-language operas and Category:Operettas. A straight 'delete' removes it from both. 'Upmerge' to Category:French-language operas and Category:Operettas in contrast leaves articles in both. Occuli (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Yes, I do recommend 'upmerging' to Category:French-language operas and Category:Operettas. Thank you. --Kleinzach 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. This is an important category, just like every other subcategory of Category:Operettas. The fact that there is a Category:Operettas presumes there should be subcategorizations by language, which there have been since 2005. If an item is categorized as as Operetta, and it is in French, it should be subcategorized under Category:French-language operettas. This is standard Wikipedia logic and subcategorization. It aids every reader and prevents them having to personally investigate all of the hundreds of Operetta articles to determine what language each is in. There is nothing unclear about the Category:Operettas, and nothing unclear about the language French. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose. What the hell? Roscelese (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I'm not sure what belongs in "Whig (British political party)" vs what belongs in "Whiggism". I'll rename this per nom to match the main article, and per rough consensus here. If someone more knowledgeable wants to create Whiggism as a parent and move articles as appropriate, I'd be in your debt. Kbdank71 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Whigs to Category:Whig (British political party)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Whig (British political party). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the category name as-is indicates it contains members of the Whig party, which it does not. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true and something I should have pointed out—as it stands, the category is a bit ambiguous and liable to be confused with Category:Whig politicians (UK), which is a subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. My first reaction was to say "rename per nom for clarity", but Whig covers a variety of related topics, from Whig history to Whig (British political party). I can't quite see the solution yet, but the proposed name change would leave us with no proper categ for the likes of King of Clubs (Whig club). We need some sort of wider restructuring, with a parent category (Category:Whiggery?) containing Category:Whig (British political party) as one sucbcat, and probably Category:Whig history as another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). How about renaming this category to Category:Whiggism (or even Category:British Whiggism) and creating Category:Whig (British political party) as a subcategory? ("Whiggery" is a word, but was usually used in a disparaging way; "Whiggism" is a more neutral description of the overarching "movement".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the ridiculously late response to the notification you kindly left on my talk.

  I agree that "Whiggery" was a poor suggestion, because of its derogatory connotations. Category:Whiggism seems better, and with 4,500 hits on Google scholar it's clearly a well-established term. So I'll go with your suggestion of Rename to Category:Whiggism, and create Category:Whig (British political party) as a subcategory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Whig British or British whig?:

• Rename to Category:Whig (British political party). It seems in the US, they were know as Whig Party. In Jolly old England, were they known as Whigs or the Whig Party or just Whig? It looks close, but from the Whig (British political party) article (reference titles, article, etc.), it looks like Whig wins out. The issue is far from settled in Wikipedia. I searched Google books for intitle:whigs/whig between 1680 and 1850. Although Books Ngram Viewer seems to favor Whigs through 1850, Google books 1680 to 1850 intitle:whigs had 11,800 results and intitle:whig had 69,100 results. Whig seems likely the more common name back in the day. Also, Whig seem to be more popular than Whigs beginning around 1850 through the present day.[1] The category name change is consistent with the above List of Categories having Whig in their name. King of Clubs (Whig club) would be in a subcategory of Category:Whig (British political party) or in the category. As an aside, instead of a piece meal approach, someone should propose name changes to all relevant Whig political party categories at one time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The U.S. and the British parties were completely separate. To rename the category for the British party has no effect on the U.S. categories for American Whigs. Most of those you list above are American Whig categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to delete, but seeing as someone moved the article, I'm going to delete this as empty. Feel free to recreate if the article is found. Kbdank71 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoalcippe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a genus of birds. The genus has only one species, so the cat will only have one article. Article can be moved to family cat. Just one of many useless cats automatically created by a bot that started a bunch of species articles. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I pretty much stay out of the sciences here at Wikipedia, so it might be different here than in say, music, but you might want to refer to WP:SMALLCAT - "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Taxonomic classification would seem to be a very widely accepted sub-categorization scheme - is that so? Roscelese (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject deletion - It looks like the cat is part of the very widely accepted sub-categorization scheme Category:Timaliidae. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I looked at some other monotypic genera. Practice seems to vary, some have the family, some have [[Category:Monotypic bird genera]]. This species currently has cats for both these, but not the genus. Let it go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Washington, Maine to Category:People from Knox County, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Merge. category for people from a very small town (1,345 people in 2000) with extremely limited potential to grow. TM 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually three is a lot from what I have experienced in my rather interesting hobby of late (creating these darned categories). What is there to say that we don't have a few others out there who are from the town but no one has made the connection to either add the brand new category or just place them on the page? There is no harm in letting this category sit there for a few months and come back then and see what arises. Also, for that many people that is quite a lot. I know of a town with over five hundred more and they only produced one famous person. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three may be a lot for a small town, but it is not useful for Wikipedia. See WP:SMALLCAT.--TM 14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Kbdank71 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cycle types to Category:Cycles

Nominator's rationale: Why we have a category for cycle types but not on cycles is a mystery to me. And, say, why don't we have an article on cycles? I might have to write it. Marcus Qwertyus 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Category:Cycles is not a good name since it is ambiguous. Motor cycles? Solar cycles? Financial cycles? Category names need to be unambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c)Keep - "Cycles" is ambiguous. Additionally there is already Category:Cycling with an extensive sub-category tree and matching article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose cycle is a dismabiguation page. Clearly this is highly ambiguous. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I agree that the current title doesn't make it infinitely clear what's in the category, the proposed name is even more ambiguous. I would support a rename, but the proposed title doesn't deal with the issue at hand. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SDLP to Category:Social Democratic and Labour Party

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to avoid abbreviation and to match main article Social Democratic and Labour Party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. JackJud (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but please keep a {{category redirect}} from the existing category name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per above. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, at least as far as this group nomination goes. I will need someone to remove the tags, however.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Each of these eponymous categories for political parties contains exactly one article and one subcategory. In each case, the article is the main articles of the same name and the subcategory is the category for politicians (or in some cases, members) of the party. I've monitored all of these for a number of months now and as far as I can tell nothing else has been added to or taken out of the categories. There are some good reasons to have an eponymous category for a political party; in general have no problem with them existing, but if this is all they include, they act only as a barrier—rather than an aid—to navigation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Union of the Democratic Centre (Spain), aka UCD, Delete the rest. In the case of the UCD, I've added 5 articles to the cat. The party itself was an alliance of convenience formed in the immediate post Franco period. It brought together some 15 to 20 parties and when it splintered 6 years later a similar number of parties where created. If any of the articles on those parties get created they can be added there. Valenciano (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, if stuff can be added to a category, I'm fine to withdraw the nomination w.r.t. that category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Spanish ones were created by me, when I created the Valencian Union and Democratic and Social Centre (Spain) ones they included the politicians. Those have now been moved to dedicated cats for the politicians and are now superfluous and can go. I suspect that the same thing has happened with some of the others with them originally including the politicians before those were moved. Valenciano (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is true—I agree that many of them were probably created to hold the politicians, but those have all been moved to politicians categories now. Most of the politicians categories are newer than the eponymous ones. I should also add that these could always be re-created if the need arises in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how this hinders navigation, since you can navigate the political party category tree with these, if they are removed, you'd have to navigate the politicians category tree. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me—it hinders—at least it has hindered me in the past in the work I've been doing. I've been working with this tree for a few months now, and it's very awkward to have to deal with these small categories. You can still get to the main article through the political party category tree, since of course the article about the party is in the political party tree—and the politicians subcategories are also always linked through the political party category tree: eg: Category:Spanish politicians by party is a subcategory of Category:Political parties in Spain. So you can still get to all the information through the political party tree, but these just add one more intermediate layer to getting there. These add absolutely nothing to the ability to navigate. It also adds inconsistencies to the category tree—if these parties have eponymous categories, why doesn't every party that has a politicians subcategory? One finds an eponymous category expecting to find more, but with these, you just don't get anything additional out of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I suggest a little caution here.
  Firstly, if the head articles are correctly categorised per WP:EPON, then existence of the eponymous category adds no extra layer to navigation. (And if WP:EPON is not being followed, it should be applied)
  Secondly, deleting these categories leaves us wit no navigational path from the head article to the politician categories: e.g. in the case of Colorado Party (Uruguay) → Category:Colorado Party (Uruguay) → Category:Colorado Party (Uruguay) politicians, this nom would remove the middle link of the chain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you have to do is add the political party to the politicians category, if that is your concern. The middle link in your chain is the extra layer, which users keep telling me doesn't exist. Or add a link to the politicians category in the article. I don't see how having an eponymous category for every political party with a politicians category is the optimal solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, but slowly (i.e., list at WP:CFD/W/M and conduct brief searches for potential category members). I agree that linking to the politicians categories in the "See also" sections of the main articles is better than eponymous categorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind going through that process. For many of them, I already have, but it would be worthwhile to do it systematically. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom (except for ones per User:Valenciano have more articles added to them). --Kbdank71 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not convinced that these categories hinder navigation. Shyamsunder (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course they do not impede it 100% but it certainly slows things down, as I've learned by working with them all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Russian-language operettas. Kbdank71 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian language operettas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Russian-language operas and Category:Operettas. Similar entries are hyphenated, so this one needs changing, however on reflection I wonder whether it is needed at all. There is only one item in the cat. The genre is really 'operetta' not 'Russian operetta'. Kleinzach 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add hypen. This is simply a matter of a typo in the category name -- it needs a hyphen to conform to the other subcategories in Category:Operettas. There are numerous operettas in the Russian language (many merely do not yet have English Wiki articles), so the category should remain. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Russian-language operettas and keep as a legitimate subcat of Category:Operettas which, like opera, is subcategorized by language. Number of current articles is of no consequence Hmains (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Hmains. This kind of subcategorization schemes are an exempt from WP:SMALLCAT. Jafeluv (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add hypen per Softlavender Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add hyphen per everyone. Roscelese (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hungarian-language operettas to Category:Hungarian operettas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hungarian operettas (i.e. operettas by Hungarians) are not necessarily in Hungarian. Many of them were in German (e.g. Das Veilchen vom Montmartre), and there were also numerous English adaptations. (I was minded to recommend deletion as the recognized genre per se is the 'operetta' irrespective of language. IMO this subject is overcategorized.). Kleinzach 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category is for operettas in the Hungarian language. It follows the conventions of the other subcategories of Category:Operettas. Operettas written by Hungarians in other languages are listed in the appropriate language subcategory. It is common for persons of one nationality to compose or write operettas or operas in another language, and as composer and librettist are often of two different nationalities, language is the only logical way to categorize. Not to mention that, what with composers and librettists moving back and forth between countries, and what with changing boundaries and changing empires, it is sometimes difficult to determine what nationality anyone is; whereas langauge is clear and immutable. Any miscategorization (the one noted was miscategorized by User:Nrswanson in September 2008) can be removed from the category. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Operettas by Hungarians" is inconsistent with the opera categories, as well as being to my mind much less interesting than a category for Hungarian-language works. Sparafucil (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a category for Hungarian-language works: Category:Hungarian-language operas. (Operettas are just one form of opera.) --Kleinzach 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That weighs in favor of keeping this subcategory: Category:Hungarian-language operettas is a subcategory of Category:Hungarian-language operas, the same way Category:English-language operettas is a subcategory of Category:English-language operas. ~ Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as a legitimate subcat of Category:Operattas which, like opera, is subcategorized by [original] language--not by country. Clean up as necessary. Hmains (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per hmains etc. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 per WP:SNOW. There's no chance this category won't need to exist in a couple weeks, so debating its merit now is pointless.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2011 singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale. Category does not belong yet as it contains no songs and will not untill at least another month. Anything added there before 2011 is WP:CRYSTAL and probably fails WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What's the point in deleting it when in a few weeks it will have loads of articles in it? This seems absolutely pointless as in a couple of weeks it will definitely be created again and will be exactly the same! Mhiji (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Then it should have been created then. There are no deadlines here STATic message me! 04:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it shouldn't have been created yet. But nominating it for deletion does just seem to be a waste of everyone's time... Mhiji (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to Category:American Indian reservations in Montana. The category was not tagged for deletion or merging, but I think that this will be an uncontroversial merge, so we'll go forward with it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian reservations in Montana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale. As a sub-category of Category:American Indian reservations in Montana this category is redundant. Its two entries easily fit into the parent category and there is no distinquishing characteristic between this category (.. Indian reservations in...) and its parent (...American Indian reservations in ...).--Mike Cline (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and delete per nom Nominator's reasons cannot be improved on Hmains (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 per WP:SNOW. There's no chance this won't need to exist in a couple weeks, so debating its merits now is pointless.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2011 songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale. Category does not belong yet as it contains no songs and will not untill at least another month. STATic message me! 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – au contraire, it already contains 3 songs. Besides it will be vast in a few weeks so deletion would be but a fleeting achievement. And it's not tagged. Occuli (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those songs were all either non-noteable or did not belong in the category. Anything added there before 2011 is WP:CRYSTAL STATic message me! 03:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What's the point in deleting it when in a few weeks it will have loads of articles in it? This seems absolutely pointless as in a couple of weeks it will definitely be created again and will be exactly the same! Mhiji (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Then it should have been created then. There are no deadlines here STATic message me! 04:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it shouldn't have been created yet. But nominating it for deletion does just seem to be a waste of everyone's time... Mhiji (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Kbdank71 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport disasters by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Move to "Transport incidents by country."

Nominator's rationale. The category suffers from media-like promotion as one moves up from the lowest level. For example, CSX 8888 incident is listed under two Railway Accident categories. The Category:Maritime incidents, along with the previous "Accident" categories are both rolled up into this disaster category. The category far overstates the nature of the reports that are included, resulting in, essentially, "category by media hype." Student7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. None of the country-specific subcategories are tagged or included in this CFR, nor is this category's parent, Category:Transport disasters, or its siblings, Category:Transport disasters by continent or Category:Transport disasters by year. That aside, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by country might provide a good example to follow if "disaster" is considered hyberbolic, but this is also part of a Category:Disasters by country scheme, so I don't know. postdlf (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Transportation accidents and incidents by country, and possibly re-establish a - rather more selective - Category:Transport disasters by country for those that are actually, y'know, disasters as opposed to oh **** moments. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this is a subcat scheme for Category:Transport disasters and it makes no sense whatever to rename it. (Nothing is tagged.) Renaming Category:Transport disasters (followed by all subcats and subcat schemes) would make sense. Occuli (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The parent category is problematic because some of the subcats are "disasterous" (as it were) but many are not. There's no differentiation in the marine or aircraft category trees, for instance, even between fatal incidents and averted catastrophes. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've gone back and redefined about 30 categories I was aware of so they wouldn't be upgraded from "incidents" to "disasters." There are perhaps several hundred others that are just beyond my energy level and interest. Someone should have caught this a lot sooner. At least in the aviation categories they had the collective "accidents and incidents" but they, too were "upgraded" to disasters further up in the chain of categorization. Hmph. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note. Category was not properly tagged; done now. — ξ^xplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is The parent categories are Transportation and Country, and all their subcats, none of which are being renamed. 'Disaster' is the proper word here; 'incidents' is the public relations/coverup word. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an appropriate parent for categories grouping by nation. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's wise to move categories, as proposed by the nominator, but I do think the Category:Transport incidents by country would still be useful. So I'd vote to create Category:Transport incidents, which would naturally be a subcategory of Category:Incidents, and would contained Category:Transport disasters. There are, after all, Transport incidents which aren't disasters, as the nominator pointed out; this fact lies at the root of this nomination. Mlm42 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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