Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 27 August 29 >

August 28[edit]

Category:Videos and DVDs[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 per nom and delete. It appears that all former content (except four articles) of this category is now in Category:Home video. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Videos and DVDs to Category:Home video
Nominator's rationale: I'm not 100% sure what this category even is, but it appears to be about home video releases. If so, why is it "videos and DVDs"? Videos are a part of what constitutes DVDs--it used to be the "V"--and there are several other home video formats; should this be named Category:Home videos, Betamaxes, Blu-Ray Discs, HD-DVDs, Laser Discs, and VHSes? Alternate proposal: delete as far too vague and broad in scope; thousands of video albums, theatrical films, television series, and documentaries have been released on home video. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is this category? What are its inclusion criteria? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose home videos are home movies made on video (ie. that thing your grandfather had that used 8mm winding film camera that you sent to Kodak for processing) ... like your grandfather's wedding film, this has nothing to do with production video. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom & the Home video article. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Videos. These are all videos, no matter what their format. The inclusion of "DVDs" immediate calls up the requirement to list all other formats in a monstrous global category name like Justin describes. I don't like the ambiguity of "Home videos" (I hear that phrase the same way the other commenters do), so I'd just go with Videos as an ubercategory--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure at all. This category appears to be for "Commercially-produced videos for viewing at home, but not home-made videos, even though they may be DVDs or blueray disc or laserdiscs rather than videotapes". Mike Selinker's suggested rename to videos doesn't include enough of that, and would include youtube videos and other such stuff wot people cannot carry home. Is there are any way of tersely summarising the description I wrote above? Or should we just conclude that that since video exists in so many difft formats, there is no point in distinguishing between those wot come in a retail box and those delivered down a pipe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Video I believe answers your questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, AFAICS. It establishes video as an overall term, but it doesn't seem to me help us in either finding a terminology for the subset in use, or in deciding whether to retain this grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards rename to Category:Videos. From the contents of the category, these pages seem to be grouped together simply through the format they were released in, while others are completely in the wrong place. For example, the Behind the Player series were all released as "interactive music videos" (whatever the hell that is), which were released in DVD format; Coming Alive in a documentary, a live video album and a full-length CD which released in, you guessed it, DVD format. The subcategories aren't any better: there's Category:Looney Tunes DVDs and Category:Stand-up comedy on DVD (seems like anything released under VHS or Blu-ray Disc format is not worthy), as well as Category:Disney videos and DVDs and Category:Television videos and DVDs (poor little Blu-ray Discs, they're being bullied by the category system). Renaming just seems the way to go. If there need be a Category:Videos by type category, then so be it. — ξxplicit 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - Per our home video article, "Home video is a blanket term used for pre-recorded media that is either sold or hired for home entertainment" (my emphasis). On the other hand, a home movie is "a motion picture made by amateurs, often for viewing by family and friends". cmadler (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does hired or sold media (as opposed to torrents and hacks) still have any presence in real life? Does the definition still stand in 2010? (I don't know, I don't watch anything longer than the Annoying Orange and it's free). East of Borschov 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think we are getting confused here because of differences in English usage. In the UK and possibly elsewhere Home Video is a term used for amateur videos, it was not until I read the the Home video article that I found that in the USA it seems to be used for commercial videos made for home entertainment. Malcolma (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been speaking American English my entire life, and I had no idea "home video" meant anything in the commercial realm. And searching for "home video" on Google doesn't suggest it's a category that American consumer culture recognizes. Could this be a neologism on Wikipedia? If so, the head article should probably change as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I was well and truly misled by the Home video article. On the basis of that if nothing else I would not like to see the category renamed to Home video as it would be replacing one misleading title with another. It seems to me, but I'm guessing again, is that the intention of Category:Videos and DVDs is to list articles about commercial video releases as we do for albums. There is existing Category:Music videos and Category:Video albums but I can't find anything that would cater for example for comedy video releases. The trouble is, I can't think of an accurate title to rename Category:Videos and DVDs to. Category:Video already exists but correctly covers the wider field of video.Malcolma (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and start a formal discussion on renaming the article Home video. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Please relist this on today's CfD, so this page can finally be closed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Selinker (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
relisted and moved to the latest discussion page.

Since this seems to have got lost among closed pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Now that the article Home video has been kept as its current title, I think the category can be kept as well. Category:Commercial video releases is a possible alternate title, but then it wouldn't be able to contain subcategories like Category:Home video companies of the United States and Category:Home video distributors, which are not video releases themselves. Even if kept as it is, some of the contents of this category should probably be removed; I'm not sure what Category:Music videos is doing there, for instance. Robofish (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be an ill-defined and pretty pointless category. Since pretty much every film and TV programme is released on video or DVD at some point, along with many things that are released directly in the format, I'm not sure what it's for and it doesn't bother to tell us. It also only contains four articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 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.

Category:T*Witches[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 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:T*Witches to Category:Twitches
Nominator's rationale: Was tagged a while back but nomination not completed. I am guessing that the rationale was presumably that this should be changed to match the main-space article names which are of the form "Twitches (blah)". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. 'T*Witches' may be how the book covers are formatted, but our articles use 'Twitches' (and I don't think there's any likely possibility for ambiguity there). Robofish (talk) 12:16, 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.

Category:Marimba players[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 6#Category:Marimba players. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Marimba players to Category:Marimbists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term marimbists is shorter, and is also analogous to the term vibraphonists (vibraphone, another keyboard percussion). See Category:Vibraphonists. --Opus88888 (talk) 23:09, 28 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:Green electricity by country[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 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Green electricity by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Both articles are already included in Category:Renewable energy in Foo which should cover this topic without a separate tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Small and confusing category. Beagel (talk) 09:11, 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:Irish emigrants to Australia[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: Reverse merge. Ruslik_Zero 11:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Irish emigrants to Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and Merge to Category:Irish immigrants to Australia, following the standard naming system and correct English - one emigrates from a country and immigrates to a country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • do it Why do some editors still get confused? Hmains (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; reverse merge. "Why" indeed do they get confused? "Emigrants" is more correct. We have an adjective here--"Irish". "Irish" must modify a noun. To be grammartically sound, the adjective and the noun must refer to the same thing or at least have their root in the same idea, without mixing and matching concepts. The person is Irish (adj) and is leaving Ireland (noun), thus "Irish emigrants" is correct. The "to Australia" is tacked onto this phrase to further modify the adjective-noun combo of "Irish emigrants". True, we can (correctly) say "immigrants to Australia", but then once we add an adjective to it, "Irish" would become a dreaded "dangling adjective"--it would modify "immigrants", but here we want the adjective and the noun to correspond. Yes, I realise "immigrants" is widely used in these categories; I believe it is a widespread mistake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you suggesting that every similar category (there are hundreds of them!) should be renamed? Or are you suggesting that for pedantic reasons (and I don't actually agree with you, but for the sake of argument) only this category should be so named? -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one. I've thought about nominating them all to change, but I haven't been confident enough in success to put in all the work yet. (I know at least User:BrownHairedGirl has mooted such a change too.) Your disagreement confirms my suspicions that such a proposal might not succeed because of a widespread misunderstanding (or a different interpretation) of the grammatical issues involved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think either naming structure is problematic. Perhaps a compromise solution can be found, like Category:Irish migrants to Australia, or Category:Migration from Ireland to Australia? Robofish (talk) 12:12, 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.

Category:Electricity sector by country[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:Electric power by country. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Electricity sector by country to Category:Electric power sector by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the main category and the name used by most of the subcategories. If this passes, we probably need to rename the subcategories that don't follow this form. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 28 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:Foreign-language newspapers published 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 to Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Foreign-language newspapers published in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Non-English newspapers published in the United States. Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States (I agree, that 'language' is an essential word here, --Soman (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)) 'Foreign' is a complicated term in Wikipedia context, and particularily so regarding the USA. By the logic 'non-English' = 'foreign', a Navajo language newspaper would be classified as 'foreign'. Soman (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming, but "Non-English" doesn't seem right. I'd support subcatting all of the articles into their particular language homes and renaming this category something else.--TM 01:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps 'Newspapers published in the United States by language'? --Soman (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom This is what they are and this is what the category description says they are so make the name match. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as the current category name is the most common name for it in the USA. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States (agree with necessity of including "language", per Cgingold below). The U.S. has no official language, and as Soman has pointed out, not all of these are "foreign" to the U.S.—some, like Navajo, are entirely indigenous to the U.S. I could also support Category:Newspapers published in the United States by language, but this would of necessity result in the exclusion of the individual articles, which would leave only the subcategories. I think the continuing use of "foreign language" in American English when what is really meant is "not English" is somewhat a generational thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would question putting Navajo-language newspapers in the category for precisely the reason that they aren't foreign. Likewise, establishing "non-English" as the determining feature implies that English is the de facto national language, because otherwise one categorization could not be substituted for the other. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Spanish a foreign language? It has official status in parts of the US, and in some states Spanish was spoken before English. --Soman (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with French in Louisiana. Is French a "foreign language" in Louisiana? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 5 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.

Category:Port cities and towns by country[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. I think a general discussion on how to name ports is warranted. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Port cities and towns by country to Category:Port settlements by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Continue moving categories to various forms of populated places and settlements as appropriate. Category:Port settlements by country matchs the parent category for these, Category:Port settlements. Also cities and towns is misleading since if we use this name, we are forced to include villages, settlements, hamlets and communes. Better to move to the broader and more inclusive name. Port settlements is already in use for many of the child categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per well-reasoned nom. Confirmed that many of the child categories are named 'settlements'; the rest should be renamed to 'settlements' also for the same reasons provided here. Trying to rename them to 'Port populated areas in foo' would just be too weird in English. Hmains (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – did we not discuss 'settlements' ad nauseam and settle upon 'Populated places' as the preferred formulation? Eg there is Category:Populated waterside places which includes all the above. Occuli (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Populated places is in general the preferred choice. However other choices are acceptable if they work better in English and don't involve Israel or a few other places. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and migrate the rest away from "settlements". I would prefer we didn't ratify a massive exception to the "Populated places" discussion. Of course, we haven't been able to gain traction on a naming scheme for port cities, so maybe the right solution is just Category:Populated ports by country.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname Category:Ports by country: does it matter if they are populated? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, here's what I really want to do, but I doubt I'd gain support for: I'd like to make all categories which are currently "Ports" into "Port facilities", and all categories which are currently "Port cities/settlements/whatever" into "Ports". But that's a massive change. Maybe we need an off-CfD brainstorm like BrownHairedGirl started for populated places.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose choice of name. I agree that I would prefer we didn't ratify a massive exception to the "Populated places" discussion. per Vegaswikian and Mike Selinker, above. --Bejnar (talk) 22:10, 12 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.

Category:Rosario[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 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rosario to Category:Rosario, Santa Fe
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 28 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:Songs written by Mike Dekle[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 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Mike Dekle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Precedent is that "songs written by X" categories get deleted if X doesn't have an article. X doesn't have an article and isn't likely to; his credits show only one other song which is not notable enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no need for this category at this time. Robofish (talk) 12:04, 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.

Obsolete Under-19 Cricket Categories[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: deleted long ago by other admins. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion Category:U-19 Cricket World Cup
Propose deletion Category:U-19 cricket teams
Propose deletion Category:U-19 Cricket
Propose deletion Category:Under-19 Cricket
Nominator's rationale: Three new categories have been created due to a change in a naming convention. These categories no longer contain articles or have any links going to them.Waterhogboy (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this nomination should be 'rename to Category:Under-19 cricket' etc. Please link to the consensus for this change. Occuli (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion WP:C1 (empty category). (Three of them have been deleted this way already.) Robofish (talk) 12:04, 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.

Category:Municipalities of Romania[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. (I've deleted my own vote below, in the interests of getting this closed.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Municipalities of Romania to Category:Cities in Romania
Nominator's rationale: This was recently renamed following a discussion here. I don't know why I wasn't informed or didn't notice the discussion, but the decision was applied clearly without consensus, and with no rational reason. These things are not municipalities (at least, they are, but other towns and communes are just as much municipalities as they are, so applying that title to this category is highly misleading). The only reasoning behind calling them municipalities is that the equivalent Romanian term for "city" (in the sense of larger/more important town) is "municipiu", and that word looks a bit like "municipality", or - as it was expressed in the only argument for this category name in the discussion - it's the "obvious anglicization". Well, obvious it may be, but wrong - if as a translator you adopted a policy of considering words equivalent on the basis of the first seven letters being the same, you wouldn't be very successful. Please put this back to the English name - this is a category of cities, nothing else. Or if you don't think cities is sufficiently strictly equivalent to municipii, then use the Romanian name.--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. The articles say these places are cities and so the category should follow on. Category names should not be derived from something other than the article content. Hmains (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not say they are cites. It says they are roughly equivalent to cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 'articles' (plural) I was referring are the articles that populate the category. Each one I checked said 'foo is a city in...' No other word than 'city' was used in the articles about each of these places. Hmains (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Cities" is only a rough term anyway, when applied to countries which don't officially designate places using such English terms. IMO Romania's "municipiu/oras" distinction is so close to the "city/town" distinction as to justify using these names for the categories (to aid readers' understanding, since the Romanian terms are not widely familiar), but calling the former set "municipalities" is doomed to cause readers' misunderstanding, since "municipality" doesn't mean that.--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, just changed the nomination to "in" rather than "of", to match the other "Cities in ..." categories.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Populated places in Romania. We have a format when it is not specified whether locations are cities or towns, so we should use it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We only just discussed this: the last one was only dated 17 August. Municipalities is an obvious anglicisation of the Roumanian term. City is itslef an ambiguous term due to US (mis) usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "keep/delete" - but please stop this "obvious anglicization" nonsense. Municipalities is an English word, it means something, it doesn't mean what municipui means, not even close. The previous decision was an obvious error that simply needs correcting. Either to cities, or to the Romanian term municipii. If we go for populated places, then it's not just a rename, but a merging of several categories. Closing admin: please try to understand the situation here and ignore proposals that don't make logical sense - Wikipedia shouldn't be damaged in this way.--Kotniski (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. As I remarked thousand times before, WP should aim at being more professional, not "we-put-everything-into-one-giant-incorrectly-named-category" type of encyclopedia. - Darwinek (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't like the use of the term "cities" as it seems to be a bit of an Americanisation, where almost any settlement of any size can be regarded as a city. In most countries only very large towns or those specifically granted the status (usually for historical and/or religious reasons) are regarded as cities. Most of the places in this category would be regarded as towns in countries outside the USA. If "municipiu" implies something specific in Romania, then that's the term we should use, as anything else will be a poor translation and not what the term really means. This is the danger of the mania of some editors for Anglicising everything on Wikipedia - it very often doesn't work and is thoroughly inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there isn't an exact translation either of municipiu or of oraş (Category:Towns in Romania), but this is close enough. We can then specify on the category page that we are referring to municipii, in order to resolve ambiguity.
    There's some confusion here as to what the term implies, and since I know Romanian, I'll try to clear it up. There is a law that states each municipiu must have 25,000 inhabitants and meet other criteria (85% of residents should be involved in non-agricultural occupations, 80% of houses should have running water, etc). The law isn't strictly followed - Beiuş, the smallest municipiu, has 12,000 people, while Baia Sprie is an oraş of 16,000 - but most of these are larger than the oraşe, which need only have 5,000 (again, not strictly applied: Băile Tuşnad, the smallest oraş, has just 1,800).
    Now, it's true that a place with 12,000 people would probably not be called a "city" in an English-speaking country. (Indeed this would be the case in colloquial Romanian too: we never use municipiu in conversation; we'd call a big city, even the capital, an oraş, and a smaller city or town by the diminutive orăşel). But on average, the municipii are bigger, and the city/town distinction seems a useful way of distinguishing the two for our category system.
    If someone has any questions I might be able to help with, please let me know. - Biruitorul Talk 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this always seems to be as close to the city/town distinction (e.g. in the UK) as could be hoped for in any non-English-speaking country. In fact, if people don't want to call these categories "cities" and "towns", then I would make one "Cities and towns in Romania" category (as is done for many other countries where there is no clear distinction), put all the municipii and orase into that, and then have a municipii category as a distinguished (non-diffusing, or whatever terminology we settled on) subcategory of that. Then at least the main category will be named in a way that will be clear to all readers.--Kotniski (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kotniski's proposal above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - the renaming being proposed there doesn't really make sense (see my comment there), and it would make even less sense here (where we have two separate city/town categories already).--Kotniski (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move towards closing this then? There seem to be two possible solutions:

  1. Simply rename this category back to Category:Cities in Romania
  2. Merge this category with Category:Towns in Romania to form a category called Category:Cities and towns in Romania, and create a new Category:Municipii of Romania (of -> in??) as a distinguished (non-diffusing) subcategory of it.

Preferences? Mine is for option 1 as the simpler, but 2 would be OK too.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm for option 1: simpler, neater, and no need to use a Romanian word when there's a perfectly good English approximation available. - Biruitorul Talk 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key word here is "approximation"! Why use an approximation when there's a perfectly good Romanian word which exactly describes what these places are? There's far too much forced Anglicisation on Wikipedia (and I'm English!). Clearly I'm for option 2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the English Wikipedia, we don't write in Arabic, Turkish, German or Roumanian. "Municipalities" in this context is affirmatively misleading. Other solutions might be better, but this has gone on so long that lets return to the former status quo ("Cities"), and propose such "better solutions" if such there be. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 12 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.

Category:Old requests for Cartoon Network peer review[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 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old requests for Cartoon Network peer review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This Cartoon Network peer review hasn't been used. The category was created in 2009 by Dylanlip and it hasn't been added since. JJ98 (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, under criterion WP:C1 (empty category) - apparently isn't being used. Robofish (talk) 12:02, 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.

Category:African-American culture[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. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:African-American culture to Category:African American culture
Nominator's rationale: Per parent and child categories —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Relative categories aside, the main article is African American culture and its own parent is African American. Neither uses or mentions hyphens. Dimadick (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand there is guidance somewhere that Fooian-American is the adjective for Fooian Americans (no hyphen) (which supports African American but not African American culture). Occuli (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming - Occuli is quite right: hyphenation is grammatically correct in the case of the adjectival form. In this case "African-American" modifies culture -- just as "20th-century" modifies literature. In both cases there is understood to be a clear distinction between the hyphenated adjective ("African-American" or "20th-century") and the un-hyphenated noun ("African American" or "20th century"). Cgingold (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hyphenation is grammatically correct; article name is incorrect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose rename the article, not the category to match our standards. Many children/grandchildren of Category:African American also need to be renamed. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 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:Fred Perry[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 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fred Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only two entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories about persons are supposed to include several articles concerning them, relative people and events. This doesn't qualify. Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are more articles or subcats to be found. (Clothing?) Occuli (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 (talk) 06:28, 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:Intuitionism (deductive)[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 per nom and delete Category:Intuitionism. Ruslik_Zero 11:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Intuitionism (deductive) to Category:Intuitionism
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did create that "Intuitionism" category separate for a reason, even though currently it is not very developed. I expect that it will be a similar situation to "formalism." I think it is a idea to keep these type of things close but separate. Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 2 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.

Category:Userboxes by Farjad0322[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: speedy delete under G7. Thanks to Farjad0322 for their swift action. — ξxplicit 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Userboxes by Farjad0322 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT as the category does not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of Wikipedia. The content can be saved on a user subpage. — ξxplicit 03:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved them to another place. Farjad0322 (talk) 09:42, 28 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:Field hockey at the Commonwealth Games[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: reverse merge. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge Category:Field hockey at the Commonwealth Games into existing category Category:Hockey at the Commonwealth Games, which contains most of the applicable articles. Title “Hockey .. etc is unambiguous, as Ice Hockey or Indoor Hockey are not Commonwealth Games sports, although the Olympics uses the category name: Category:Field hockey at the Olympics. Hugo999 (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the other way. Parent category is Category:Field hockey competitions. Hockey is ambiguous and most people are not aware of the exact sports played at the Commonwealth games. Occuli (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Occuli.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Consistency is valuable here to minimize confusion to the reader. The category should retain the field hockey name. Resolute 15:14, 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:Ben Cardin[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 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ben Cardin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with only 3 articles concerning a U.S. Senator that is unlikely to grow. Cardin was elected in 2006 and lacks any significantly notable accomplishments during his time in the Senate. TM 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His signifance is barely established at this point. Perhaps if he gains a long and storied career. Dimadick (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is 'what links here' for this sort of stuff. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but link via template or navbox. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of Cardin's accomplishments or lack thereof, there's simply no need for this category, as the two ancillary articles are well & properly linked from the bio article. Cgingold (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eponymous categories aren't necessary or warranted for the vast majority of people; presidents and prime ministers, sure, but almost never senators. Bearcat (talk) 09:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_28&oldid=1138393593"