Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5[edit]

Category:Wikipedia administrative templates[edit]

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 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia administrative templates to Category:Wikipedia administration templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Subtle one, this: The templates aren't themselves administrative; they're used for administration. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2008 (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:Wikipedia transclusionless templates[edit]

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: nothing. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates to Category:Wikipedia substituted templates
Nominator's rationale: Merge, as former seems to be duplicate of latter. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (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:Disputed or Controversial Topics[edit]

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disputed or Controversial Topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A POV fork of Category:Pseudoscience, being misused to depopulate that category. FYI, for the Arbcom's ruling on the proper use of Category:Pseudoscience, see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Odd nature (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It serves no viable purpose. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious attempt to circumvent the Category:Pseudoscience. Flat Earth is not controversial or disputed, it is plainly pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork created without discussion or agreement, and applied to well substantiated cases of pseudoscience. ... dave souza, talk 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While "pseudoscience" has always been a controversial category, this is definitely not a viable solution. Additionally, the examples cited by the category creator as "significantly disputed or controversial [within] the scientific community" are, in fact, not. In any case, this is an awkwardly named and inaccurately applied POV fork; if you want to deal with the pseudoscience category, best to do so directly rather than circuitously. MastCell Talk 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Filll (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and tortuous, subjective definition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a textbook POV fork. I note that the creator moved Category:Creation Science into it, despite broad consensus that Creation science satisfies the ArbCom criterion for inclusion. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Odd nature, MastCell. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At least this debate doesn't fall into that category :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Lawrence § t/e 19:47, 7 March 2008 (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:Sex offenders[edit]

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: I'm not convinced that renaming Category:Sex offenders to Category:People convicted of sex crimes will resolve any of the arguments raised in favour of deletion, but it certainly doesn't strengthen them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nominating for deletion" Not helpful to the project. Difficult to categorize and define, based on the variety of potential offenses. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : as far as I can see, this is more of a superparent category, with included articles broken down by nationality and/or specific offence (rape, etc.). If the nomination is just for this category alone, I would have to say Keep, unless all the other subcategories by nationality/offence are included in the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the other subcategories should be included in the deletion nomination. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. But they have not been nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The user who nominated this category for deletion, Jkp212, is a fan of the convicted child molester and one-hit wonder pop singer Peter Yarrow. As a pointy and sneaky way to solve a dipute about whether his hero should be kept in this category, this user is attemtpting to nuke the issue by deleting the category altogether!.John celona (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE -- the comment above was made by a suspected sock puppet: see John celona. There is no rhyme or reason for the handful of individuals in this potentially dangerous "BLP" category. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"No rhyme or reason" ... except that presumably they have been convicted in court of a sex crime, which is the reason for the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - besides WP:BLP concerns the category (and its subcats which should be added to the nomination) are overly broad. Lumps together serial rapists and peeping toms. Not useful. Otto4711 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE --User jkp212 has falsely reported me as a sockpuppet and has been slapped down each and every time. Also, there are 28 articles listed on the American sex Offenders category and not the "handfull" this user is falsely claiming. John celona (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For accuracy, it was not I who reported Celona as the sockpuppet. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it makes no sense to delete parent categories when the sub cats are perfectly legitimate and so is this one. WP is not a censored document. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a question of censorship and your comments do not address the concerns raised for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DISCRETION is not censorship. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cat and it's sub cats provide way too much room for mischief and little value to the project. The handful of people whose principal noteriety (and notablity) is as sex offenders deserve their own page. But the cat and subcategories provide too much opportunity to include Jeffrey Dahmers and Marquises de Sade with folks whose deeds do not belong in the same category. David in DC (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE David in Dc is the second part of the 2 man team which is seeking to censor the child molestation prison sentence served by their hero, one hit wonder pop musician Peter Yarrow.John celona (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is absurd to delete this parent category whilst keeping the subcats (which are not nominated). (Some of the subcats are misplaced.) Categories do necessarily lump together people of differing orders; Pele is in category footballers as are a host of journeymen. There may well be a case for deleting some of the subcats - let it be made. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is a category which needs to be used carefully but when there are sources for convictions then it is perfectly reasonable. Agree with sentiment that nomination is in bad faith over the Yarrow dispute. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is not limited to "sex offenders." I think Category:Sex crimes should be the parent category ... and it is noted that it needs attention. Also, note that someone can be a "sex offender" without a conviction -- see the NYT reference on Rafael Septien: "Under deferred probation, if Septien follows the terms of his sentence, it will not go on his record as a conviction." Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but I would suggest that WP should limit categories like this to situations where convictions have been secured. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic. No end of press on sex crimes. I would rename to something else more tangible: Category:People convicted of sex crimes, into which one could add all those convicted of violating sodomy, seduction, chastity, contraception, miscegenation, etc. crimes that in most of the modern world are seen as human rights issues rather than "sex crimes". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I assume that care is taken that only persons CONVICTED of sexual offences are included. Otherwise, it is potentially WP:OR WP:POV and potentially libellous. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:People convicted of sex crimes, as suggested above. I just restored Category:Sex crimes as a parent cat (it was erroneously deleted last September). And it's worth noting that one of the sibling sub-cats is Category:People acquitted of sex crimes, the obvious counterpart to this category. Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:People convicted of sex crimes; useful cat, but full of articles that are not about persons. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as above. However, I would also rename the "rapist" subcategory and its sub-sub-categories, as it has similar problems. It asserts a fact about the people included in the category that may or may not be true, certainly isn't NPOV, and it asserts it in an absolute way that is dangerously close to libel if there's a BLP in there. Gigs (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (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:British Pakistanis[edit]

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:British people of Pakistani descent. Kbdank71 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British Pakistanis to Category:Pakistani Britons
Nominator's rationale: Okay, User:Stevvvv4444 has moved some of the British/Pakistani articles around. I've outlined the problems with this on his talk page and on an AN report for what the problem is. I don't have any problem with the move but I'm not entirely sure on what the consensus on this and I think the community needs to build one before the user attempts to move them across single-handedly, manually. For the record, I am remaining neutral on the change but would like to see what the consensus for prior cases is, or a new consensus built. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely these are two completely different things? Pakistani Britons are British people of Pakistani descent; British Pakistanis are Pakistani people of British descent - no? Grutness...wha? 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but your confusion is perfectly understandable. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is the proper name; also do the other work per Roundhouse. Hmains (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:British people of Pakistani descent weeding out any Pakistani people of British descent. As always these Brit categories are totally confusing to Grutness and many others, and "Britons" is no solution. See the still ongoing "British-Germans" (or is it the other way round. The whole tree needs clarifying. "Foo-Americans" is generally unconfusing, but "French-Germans", "Polish-Italians" etc just could be either. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Johnbod - This term is probably wider than British Pakistani, and certainly much clearer. Since most are Muslims they continue to form a distinct community, in a way that some other immigrant communities nolonger do. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I apologise if I have caused any confusion or controversy in the renaming of tha articles in question, however I do believe that I am right in renaming them. Pakistani British/ Pakistani Britons or Pakistani Briton are the correct terms (i.e. with Pakistani first), it makes more sense to have the name of a persons ethnic origin first (as can be seen with say Italian American - Americans of Italian descent and Jamaican British - Britons of Jamaican descent). I know it is easier in the case where the term 'American' is used, as you cannot say List of Pakistani British (British and Britons are the same thing), I definately believe the article should be named 'Category:Pakistani Britons' or 'Category:British people of Pakistanu descen', as 'Category:British Pakistanis' definately means Pakistanis of British descent. To User talk:Roundhouse0 and User:Hmains, I would like to say in the UK Census is says 'ASIAN or ASIAN BRITISH', NOT 'BRITISH ASIAN', the wikipedia article bearing this title is wrongly named, and I suggest that it be changed ASAP (along with other articles with the 'British' first - e.g. British Chinese), even National Statistics which conducted to 2001 UK Census uses the term ASian British, and I am pretty sure they aren't wrong[1][2]. Thank you Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2008 (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:2006 FIFA World Cup group stages[edit]

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 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2006 FIFA World Cup group stages to Category:2006 FIFA World Cup group stage
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Incorrect pluralisation. There was only one group stage at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. – PeeJay 12:46, 5 March 2008 (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:FIFA World Cup 1930 managers[edit]

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, and lets assume a little good faith here, people. Kbdank71 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FIFA World Cup 1930 managers to Category:1930 FIFA World Cup managers
Nominator's rationale: Rename - To match the parent category. – PeeJay 10:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following categories for renaming for the same reason:
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 10:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - categorizing players, managers, referees, etc. on the basis of specific games or series in which they participated is overcategorization. Lists already exist. Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I completely disagree with you there. Participating in the FIFA World Cup is the pinnacle of a player/manager/referee's career, so to categorise by this particular tournament is completely appropriate. Since there are probably thousands of articles in the above categories, it would be inappropriate to simply categorise them as "FIFA World Cup players/managers/referees", so all I'm asking for is that the current categories are renamed appropriately. – PeeJay 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I think Otto4711 and Carlossuarez46 would like to delete all categories - and surely they mean upmerge (to Category:FIFA World Cup managers etc, which would then be vast and need subcatting, eg by year). The world cup is a crowning achievement for a player/manager/referee and certainly defining. (The lists are very good, it must be said.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the assumption of good faith re: the existence of categories. Appreciate it. And no, I don't mean upmerge, I mean delete, and the parent categories should be renamed and repurposed to house the list articles. 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
  • That would be absurd. The problem is that you deletionists have 2 nice catchy deletion arguments ('OCAT by XYZ', 'not defining') which can be quoted effortlessly in 2 seconds without explanation, and a like-minded closer comes along and deletes the whole lot without even upmerging, thus losing a lot of essential structure. It is a problem if an editor comes here with a simple renaming request and gets the whole lot deleted instead. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you don't like how CFD works, but once you bring a category here all options are open. I've brought categories here for renaming and gotten them deleted instead. I was annoyed by it just like you are, but IIRC I refrained from hurling accusations and invective at the people who !voted for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. I am usually a deletionist but we need more categorization not less. Most of these cats have 8 or more members. That's certainly enough for a separate cat given how many subcats are in these categories. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:19, 11 March 2008 (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:Electronic parts makers[edit]

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 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electronic parts makers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Poor title and approp cat at Category:Electronics companies. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 09:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Electric coupling[edit]

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 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric coupling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: not likely to be further populated. The three terms should be merged into Category:Electronics terms. Being a list of terms it does not make sense to split out a few terms. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 05:49, 5 March 2008 (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.

Template categories whose names include "navigation templates", "navigational templates", "navigational boxes", etc[edit]

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 and more importantly wrong venue. No specific category or group of categories has been nominated for renaming or deletion. Abstract discussion about naming conventions for categories of templates used in articles would be better suited to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates, etc. Please return when you have decided which categories should be changed, or be bold and rename them all yourself if nobody is likely to have a rational objection. — CharlotteWebb 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike categories of infobox templates, which seem to use the one description "X infobox templates", there isn't a standard description for "navigation" or "navbox" templates. Also, some templates that appear to be infobox-style (i.e. vertically aligned and usually on the right) but aren't called "Infobox [Name]" and/or don't use the infobox class are categorized as navigation(al) templates or boxes.

  1. Should only templates called "Infobox [Name]" and/or templates using the infobox class and/or vertically-aligned templates sit in categories called "X infobox templates"?
  2. Suggest only templates using the navbox class and/or built using {{Navbox}} or the like sit in categories called "X navbox templates".
  3. Since virtually all non-inline templates will include one or more links, i.e. provide some "navigation", suggest all other templates sit in "X templates" categories (i.e. the parent categories for "X infobox templates" and "X navbox templates" categories).

I realize that if there's a consensus as to what do about this, it'll mean a big renaming job, but I'm hoping one or more bots can be assigned the donkeywork. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quasi-object. Generally, if the box appears on the right hand side and the information changes based on input, it's an infobox. Otherwise, it's a navbox. And many many templates aren't either of these 2 categories. If you run into miscategorized templates, then change the category. Having done almost exclusively template categorization the last 9 months, I can honestly tell you that at least 80% of templates aren't even categorized. I almost feel like we should tackle that first before completely overhauling what we already have. I say quasi object because honestly, I wouldn't be completely against an overhaul of the categorization scheme. I just worry that we're going to make this more unruly than it already is. If anyone doubts my 80% number, look here. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. However, if it's something a bot can do by itself, how about renaming all the "X navigation(al) templates"/"X navigation(al) boxes" categories to "X navbox templates", at least for the time being, as if nothing else it should remove much of the second-guessing when recategorizing a template from an "X templates" to an "X [navigation/al/templates/boxes/which is it??] templates" category without opening another page to see which it is! Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. I'll agree to that. It is frustrating, especially when the verbage is different within the same category. I prefer navigational boxes because that's what they are. I haven't seen any navigational templates which aren't boxes in the broad sense. But whatever people agree on is fine. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. Thanks. I think my first preference for the rename is "...navbox templates" as it follows infobox, userbox, helpbox, etc. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like we have consensus on this one. 2 people really isn't enough to make a massive change such as this. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or is it that folk don't mind one way or the other? (At least, folk who watch CfD.) I could try some (semi-)manual renaming to "...navbox templates" to see what gives and report back here...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (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:ELCA Predecessor Churches[edit]

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 15:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ELCA Predecessor Churches to Category:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America predecessor churches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fix caps and expand abbreviation "ELCA" to match parent Category:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No objection from me as category creator - a perfectly sensible rename. Pastordavid (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested rename feels a bit of a mindful when I try reading it... How about "Predecessor churches to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America"? Sure, it's a bit longer, but seems easier on the mind (to me anyway). Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either rename but we must get rid of the abbreviation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the shorter name infact either is ok, however I agree that the abbreviation must go.Thright (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright[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:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami[edit]

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami to Category:Visitor attractions in Miami, Florida
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami → Category:Visitor attractions in Miami —(Discuss)— Inconsistent use of "greater miami" when compared to the full list of Category:Visitor attractions by city. Talk page located here: Category_talk:Visitor_attractions_in_Greater_Miami —SpikeJones (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC) SpikeJones (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I modified the nomination to include the state to match the parent category as well as some children. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If renamed, prune all attractions not within the city limits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that would be a pretty small list. Most of the attractions are located outside Miami. Some are in comparatively large cities (like Coral Gables, Miami Beach, etc.)
  • Strongly oppose. For all the same reasons that User:EaglesFanInTampa points out on the Tampa move below. Miami may be the most popular 'name' in the metro and the currently the most populous city; but Hialeah, the Beach and the Gables aren't too far behind in population and are completely separate cities. The Beach also gets far more tourists than the city of Miami does. What's wrong with a category for Greater Miami? - Marc Averette (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Miami-Dade County, perhaps. — CharlotteWebb 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somebody tried that with Orlando and got banned from editing. It/They had the same argument (most attractions outside the city, i.e., Disney), yet the geniuses voted to put them all in Orlando, even though some are in completely separate cities such as Lake Buena Vista, Bay Lake & Kissimmee. - Marc Averette (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Based on the way discussions are moving for some later nominations, it appears that consensus is no longer going to remain with using the city categories for the broader areas. So leaving this category where it is appears to reflect the new consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (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:Visitor attractions in the Tampa Bay Area[edit]

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in the Tampa Bay Area to Category:Visitor attractions in Tampa, Florida
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Visitor attractions in the Tampa Bay Area → Category:Visitor attractions in Tampa, Florida —(Discuss)— Inconsistent use of "tampa bay area" when compared to the full list of Category:Visitor attractions by city. Talk page located here: Category talk:Visitor attractions in the Tampa Bay Area —SpikeJones (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Narrowing it to just "Tampa" excludes almost 1/2 the attractions on the list, since they're in other cities in the area. St. Petersburg is home to 4 of the 12 attractions so far in that category, and Plant City is home to one, Dinosaur World. Removing these in lieu of a one-city category (which would need to be since all cities are separate here in the Tampa Bay Area) would make the category have only 7 articles, and bring it to a point of irrelevance. Limiting it to "Tampa" only also infers that the other cities are inconsequential and just suburbs of Tampa, when in reality, that is not the case. Tampa has only 84K more people than St. Pete, with Clearwater not too far behind St. Pete. While most other cities in the main category are listed as the dominating one, there can be exceptions to rules. What would happen if The Metroplex was involved? Do you think the residents of Fort Worth consider themselves Dallas or vice-versa? No, but they would still be grouped together since their economies and attractions are dependent upon each other (see Six Flags Over Texas as an example, located in Arlington...would that be group with Dallas or Fort Worth?). Same goes with the Twin Cities (with the Mall of America, located in Bloomington). Every rule has exceptions, and since there is no dominating city in the Tampa Bay Area and the category would be pointless without the attractions in the other cities, I think this is one of those exceptions that can be made. EaglesFanInTampa 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. EaglesFanInTampa I think is about right. Attractions in Tampa should be a sub category if there is a need to break those out. Note this was not my nomination, I just moved it from WP:RM so this is not a second vote from me. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an election, so !votes don't count. It's also Florida, where elections are always a bit odd.... :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If renamed, prune all attractions not within the city limits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What was the rationale for changing the Greater Orlando category? Will the same illogic be applied to this Tampa move? Once again, almost all of those attractions are outside the city. - Marc Averette (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Orlando got caught up in cleaning up after some out of process moves and deletions. It did not get a review of much else in the effort to undo the WP:POINT changes. My take on this as pointed out in the culture discussion is to use the major city without the state as the one for the general area. That's how we use it today in many places. This allows you to create a city specific category if it really is needed in certain cases. If we establish this as the convention, then we don't have a problem with the meaning of Los Angeles by itself in the category. If can cover the city, the county, the metropolitan area or the LA basin. When and if there is a generally accepted name of the area, that could also be used, like the Tampa Bay Area.Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_5&oldid=1141928433"