Category:Port cities and towns of the Arabian Sea[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:keep. There was insufficient discussion to consider an alternative at this time. — ξxplicit 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Both entries are cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Populate the category instead of spending time renaming. And its parents and all their childen should be renamed to Category:Port cities and towns ... to facilitate their proper population and prevent a set of parallel categories for port cities and port towns. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 22:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - I'm inclined to agree with Hmains. From a quick look thru the larger category tree, I'd say that about 2/3 of the existing categories already take the form of "Port cities and towns". Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. I don't see the reason to exclude towns. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, certainly for now. More comprehensive changes to the entire hierarchy may be proposed later. There has already been extensive discussion and strife in this area, so a one-category change without taking the fuller picture into account is ill-advised. __meco (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we changed the top levels. It is not possible to do a mass nomination from the bottom up since you need to look at every single article. So that means doing a few categories at a time. This is not going to be a quick process. Requiring bulk nominations will slow down the process. But if that is the consensus, we will have to make it work somehow. One other option is to go up an extra level or two where these are under Category:Port settlements, so would Category:Port settlements of the Arabian Sea be a good compromise? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't 'ports of' ambiguous? Is it the port facility or the surrounding settlement? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mad Men (TV series) --> Category:Mad Men episodes[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 as proposed. Ruslik_Zero 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - per the lead article Mad Men the disambiguation is unnecessary and the rename reflects the category's contents. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is this really so controversial a change that it needs another week? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article, in a case where disambiguation is not needed. Alansohn (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modified support I agree absolutely that there should be an episode category, I think the only reason there isnt's is that articles on individual episodes is a relatively new phenomenon. However, rather than renaming the category, it would be better to create Category:Mad Men episodes, then keep this category (without the disambiguation) as an overarching category for episodes, characters, the episode list, the lead article, and other related pages (see Category:Lost (TV series) for example). It should be noted that Category:Mad Men was previously deleted, but this was back in 2007 when there were fewer articles and the show was less notable. From the discussion it seems that category was only used as an image repository for underdeveloped articles back then. Lampman (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename: This category only contains articles about specific episodes. Comment: Although this category says its main article is Mad Men (TV series) (which is a redirect to Mad Men), that article isn't even contained in it! :-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Trinity College (Connecticut) alumni[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. — ξxplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The parent article is Trinity College, Hartford and there appears no reason not to have the category title match that of the parent article. The discrepancy is a barrier to editors and readers hoping to find the category from an article. Alansohn (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom. It should obviously match. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Expatriate football managers in Africa[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contents is entirely duplicated in all of the various sub-categories under each country. Category should be removed from all the articles listed. --Falcadore (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree (the category should be removed from all articles which appear in subcats). Also the inclusion criteria "Non-African football managers who have worked as a manager or coach for an African team, regardless of country" are bizarre - an Egyptian working in Nigeria (say) is an expatriate. Occuli (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. — ξxplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - trivial fact – they attended a small workshop for sci-fi writers – that tells you nothing about them. No need to listify and articles already have much more useful lists.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a small workshop at all. It is probably the most venerable and highly regarded writers' workshop in the science fiction literary world. It's been around since 1968, lasts the entire summer, with instructors such as Neil Gaiman, Harlan Ellison, Orson Scott Card, and Octavia Butler and has produced such graduates as Nalo Hopkinson, Cory Doctorow, Geoffrey A. Landis, Vonda N. McIntyre, and Bruce Sterling. If the Iowa Writers' Workshop may have categories for alumni and faculty, why not one for the Clarion Writers' Workshop? (I'd also like to point out that there have been many more faculty and prominent alumni who have not been classified in the category yet).Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The difference between Clarion (which is a 6-week program) and Iowa (which is a 2-year program leading to an MFA degree) is significant. The latter has parallels to our college alumni categories, while the former does not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the Iowa comparison is poor. However, this is still perhaps the most serious and intensive speculative fiction incubator in the field. A full-time six-week program is not a small workshop. The Clarion West Writers Workshop article is better than the Clarion Workshop one, and gives a better sense of its scope and history. A very large number of serious speculative literature figures have come through the Clarion workshops. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clarion is a long-running and successful program with two branches in the US and one in Australia. Authors who have gone through Clarion refer to the experience throughout their career and have often talked about learning to write in a manner which indicates similarities of technique, even if there are not similarities of style or theme in their writing. Shsilver (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clarion veterans come out of it with a certain air of esprit de corps that is significant, and of note within the history of the field. I will also point out to the original nominator that a significant portion of the science fiction community considers the term "sci-fi" a pejorative, and its use revelatory of an attitude of contempt towards the genre and its practitioners. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assure there is no such attitude on my part, and I've never come across it in a pejorative sense – it's just a common abbreviation of science fiction, so widely used it's almost interchangeable with it, and not likely to be confused as e.g. "SF" could be. In particular I can't imagine it would be used to name major TV channels if it were widely considered negative.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would be amazed. And it is within the community that the term is regarded as an insult. Those outside don't even seem to notice, and this includes network executives, who are a part of the Hollywood community, not the community of whatever happens to be the theme of their network. I believe the person above was giving you a gentle heads-up. Please recall, many offensive terms have been common. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That major TV channel (now known colloquially as the SyFyllis channel) is run by "the suits": exactly those who display the most blatant attitude of contempt towards the genre and its practitioners; that's why there is almost no actual SF on the channel any more, not even in the limited sense in which most television "science fiction" can be deemed science fiction. Instead, it's a hideous blend of wrestling, ersatz "reality" occultism, and monster movies. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a significant credential in the sci-fi world. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except I believe the category as it exists includes both teachers and alumni.Shsilver (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that event, an obvious solution would be to split it into two renamed categories -- if it's retained. Cgingold (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining attribute of the individual participants and an aid to navigation across the articles so tagged. Alansohn (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film[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. — ξxplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is already a relevant list, so this subcategory is clearly overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. — ξxplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - non-defining of the people in the category. Per Chris Jericho's autobiography, "membership" in the "Dungeon" was open to anyone who ponied up a couple thousand dollars and showed up. There was no "Dungeon"; the "Dungeon" was promotional hype drummed up by the Hart family wrestlers for a payday. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of former WWE/WWF/WWWF/WCW/ECW/NWA/AWA/World Heavyweight Champions and legendary wrestlers have went through the Dungeon. During its heyday, it was one of the most sought after places to train and it was in one of the toughest territories in the North America or the world. The Dungeon was the nickname of the basement in the former Hart Family house where they trained. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of future champions trained at the Hart camp, which was not in the Hart's basement and for a decent portion of its existence had no affiliation with the Harts at all other than their name. So did a lot of people who paid the entrance fee and never accomplished anything in the world of wrestling. Not that this is dispositive but in all the years I watched wrestling I never once heard an announcer say that a wrestler was a "Dungeon graduate". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, they have made reference to people whether it be in TNA or WWE that they've trained in the Dungeon. They've made numerous references in the WWE that TJ Wilson is a Dungeon graduate. Whether he is the last one is debatable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sportspeople by training location seems like an especially bad precedent to set. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Ol'factory - not a defining characteristic. Robofish (talk) 11:54, 3 September 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. — ξxplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article and to properly disambiguate in a situation where it is needed. Alansohn (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Railway cuttings in the United States[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. Whether the category should use "railway" or "railroad" can be dealt with in a future nomination. — ξxplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To better match the name of the main article. I have not proposed moving the British one since I think that is a US/UK difference. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right as to UK usage. Should it be Railroad cuts in US? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Category:Rail infrastructure in the United States uses railway so this should for consistency. It could be that railroad is the more correct term, but I'm happy to deal with that issue later across that group of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that "railway" may have been more predominant in U.S. usage than "railroad" originally, I think (i.e. many of the older railway companies in the U.S., it seems, used "railway" in their names, instead of "railroad" (e.g. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway)). However, I think the usage of "railway" instead of "railroad" here in the U.S. may possibly be more of a personal preference, actually. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:52, 4 September 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 both. Ruslik_Zero 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the name of the main article. Both of these are thinly populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
change some other way this is not just a rename it is a merge. Railway and road categories should be kept separate so they can fit into their railway and road parents. Hmains (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about this, I'm not in favor of keeping the split for the reason raised. In the end it affects a total of 2 articles which can be manually modified if needed. All of the subcategories already roll up into transportation type specific categories on their own so loosing that information at this level should not be a big deal. One of the articles is also in the more specific infrastructure category and the other is in a transport category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the normal UK terminology. A "cut" is slang for a canal, which may be described perjoratively as a "dirty cut", probably with the implication that it smells becuase the water is stagnant. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Weak?] Oppose (I guess): I would have said Support (the categories are pretty vacant... :-), but per Peterkingiron's comment above, I guess I'll have to say Oppose. Even though I'm an American, we've got to respect the way people in other countries talk. Also, in my humble opinion, the word "cutting" seems to be/sounds more correct than "cut". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:37, 4 September 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.
