Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 12 December 14 >

December 13[edit]

Category:Albanian Declaration of Independence[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albanian Declaration of Independence to Category:Signatories of the Albanian Declaration of Independence
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Apart from the article Albanian Declaration of Independence, this category contains bio articles of the signatories of the document. So I propose renaming it to better reflect what the category is about. If renamed, it should then be moved out of Category:Categories named after texts and placed in Category:Signatories by document. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The category name should be consistent with the membership. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:V-weapon subterranea[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. The category serves to hold a valid subset of its two parents. That said, the sites category might deserve a look.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:V-weapon subterranea to Category:Vergeltungswaffen sites
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Clear case of WP:OC; small category, including several only vaguely related articles. Possible useage as a subcategory of Category:Nazi subterranea, but the articles that would qualify in that manner could simply be added to that category itself as well as Category:Vergeltungswaffen sites. The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not at all clear that this is a small category, especially since the next comment identifies there were "few that weren't subterranean" and there are lots in the category (even without it yet being fully populated). Target for Today (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Support merge The significance of Category:V-weapon subterranea is clearly for being Category:Vergeltungswaffen sites, rather than their subterranean nature. There are few that weren't subterranean, or at least had some bunker-like component. There are scant few that don't belong equally in both, so it does seem to be rather a duplication. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not at all clear that the subterranean characteristic is not the "significance", as the sites were purposely placed underground for significant reasons (i.e., sheltering from bomb attacks). Target for Today (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the conjectured overcategorization is more indicated by the vague, non-English named, and unnecessary container category with no articles (Category:Vergeltungswaffen sites) and not the notable and specific Category:V-weapon subterranea. Target for Today (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what would you do with the non-subterranean sites? You can have two categories, or you can have a single category that doesn't make claims about them being subterranean, but you can't have one subterranean category when not all of them were.
You make a possible case for renaming from Vergeltungswaffen to V-weapon, but that's not what's at question here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This response doesn't make sense, as there are no "non-subterranean sites" listed (am I missing something?--I've only been on wikpedia for about a month--the "Keep" guy even identified the other "unnecessary container category with no articles") So to what articles is the "what would you do" claim referring? I hope I got this tilde thing right. Long Island Lyn (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subterranea category is a great category, as the underground facilities are the historically very notable ones and are likely to have articles (there're lots of articles in the subterranea category already)! Like the "Support merge" guy says, there are "few that weren't subterranean" (if any) and very few even exist above-ground any more and I doubt more than a handful will ever have articles (are there any yet?) Anyway, a reader shouldn't have to guess as to which article is for an underground V-weapn site, which would be required if the subterranea category's articles are moved to the generic parent category (which is as the "Keep" guy said, "unnecessary"). Long Island Lyn (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completed in the future[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; a) empty, b) recreate when there are buildings actually completed in 2012. Marking them as "completed" now is CRYSTAL and OR (find me a source today that says "building x is completed in 2012" and I'll eat my hat). Kbdank71 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bridges completed in 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures completed in 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yes, I removed the single entry here. These structures are correctly listed in the under construction categories and when they are completed they can be moved to the proper by year categories. I'm bringing these here to make sure that there is consensus to do this since the ones for 2011 were also created and populated and I suspect that some editors would like to classify articles in this way for more years. I have not nominated the 2011 ones for deletion since 2011 is only 3 weeks away and they could be populated at any time after that. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Not completed, which should contain all of Category:Not started. "... in future" is redundant with "Not ...". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps ... due to be completed. When finished the category can be renamed or the artiles recategorised. the present name fails WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reaming would only work if everything was completed at one time. Otherwise we need to move each one when it is completed. The last 3 years or so has shown that plans can change and the crystal ball is broken. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Partial list of victimology 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: delete all. Kbdank71 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion as continuation of prior nomination and April 30, 2009 discussion of victim tree
Victims of repressions
These 30 categories (for starters) should be deleted for WP:WEASEL and WP:POV
They are unavoidably subjective and sometimes intentionally misleading or in the service of propaganda/apologetics (i.e. for example, Category:Nazi leaders executed in the Soviet Union was actually a subcategory of Category:German victims of Soviet repressions.)
In other cases people who suffered for political activity are credited as having been repressed for their nationality or religion. Of course, these are often intertwined, but misleading and unworthy of an encyclopaedia. Some categories are absurd intersections with as few as one entry; others are potentially unlimited. [email protected] (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blanket deletion. Would support individual deletions on a case by case basis. Could the proposer supply a particularly invidious example? Where a cat has few or no articles, that would be a potentially good reason for deletion; which ones meet this criterion? Where an article has too many entries, that would be a potentially good reason for splitting; which ones meet this criterion? Where some are wholy or mainly non NPOV, that might be a good reason for tidying up (if they are indded capable of such redemption); which ones meet this criterion? Otherwise the bona fides of their originator must be accepted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. These are problematic, and almost invariably one or two of these type are deleted every few months for the same reasons given by the nominator. Some users complain when one or two are singled out—now we have an editor complaining about a group nomination! Let's recognise once and for all what I feel is relatively uncontroversial: that this scheme is problematic and POV. To delete some of these but not all of them only exacerbates the POV problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all per nominator, and congratulations for making this group nomination. The problem here is common to all these categories, and it is a flaw of concept rather than of application: what exactly is a "victim of political repression"?
I'm sure that most of, or maybe all, the editors who could agree on some individual cases which amount to "political repression", but there would be many more where we disagree, and those disagreements will happen repeatedly because there is no prospect of achieving a stable and neutral definition which is not original research. Some of the issues which arise which divide editors along political lines, but necessarily in ways with which they will be comfortable if the definition is applied consistently
  1. The right to vote. Is being deprived of the vote a form of political repression? If so, then we add every woman in most countries before the 20th century, felons in the USA, and prisoners in the United Kingdom. If not, then we exclude the racially-excluded majority in apartheid South Africa.
  2. The right to hold a job despite having unpopular political views. If that's included, we bring in victims of McCarthyism in the US, and of the berufsverbot in Germany. If it's not included, then a lot of Soviet dissidents fall off the list.
  3. People who engage in any degree of violent resistance to the state. If they are included, then most people who are labelled as "terrorist" get included; if not, then we exclude the Irish leaders imprisoned by the British, as well as subsequently-sanctified rebels like Nelson Mandela. Don't forget those involved in demonstrations where the police use force: that's a large numjber in the UK alone, where we could include the poll tax riots and the 2010 UK student protests. Exclude them, and there will be objections from those who point to people engaged in political protest who ended up beaten or imprisoned; include them and there will be objections from those who hold to the government's view that the people charged were criminals.
  4. People who have been prosecuted for expressing unacceptable opinions. Where does the line get drawn here? DIf we count any restraint on free speech as "political repression", then we apply the label to those in the UK who have been prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred: Nick Griffin is one example.
If these categories are going to stay, we need a stable, neutral, and objective definition of "political repression" which is applied consistently to all the countries on this list. Anything less breaches our core policy of a Neutral point of view, and that's why I oppose any selectivity in approaching this list. Either we have a stable, neutral, and objective definition of "political repression", in which case we restore the deleted national categories such as the Category:Victims of American political repression ... or we 'don't have that neutral definition, in which case we delete the lot. The only grounds for selectively keeping some of these categories is that we are applying different standards in difft cases ... and because I have never seen anything remotely approaching a stable, neutral, and objective definition of "political repression", I see no alternative to deleting them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia categories with repression and victim in their name
Propose renaming Category:American victims of Soviet repressions to Category:American people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Armenian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Armenian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Atheist victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Atheist people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Austrian victims of Nazi German repressions to Category:Austrian people persecuted by political repression in Nazi German
Propose renaming Category:Azerbaijani victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Azerbaijani people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Belarusian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Belarusian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Bulgarian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Canadian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Canadian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Catholic victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Catholic people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Christian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Christian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Cossack victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Cossack people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Crimean Tatar victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Crimean Tatar people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Czech victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Czech people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Dutch victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Dutch people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Catholic victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Eastern Catholic people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Eastern Orthodox people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Estonian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Estonian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Finnish victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Finnish people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Georgian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Georgian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:German victims of Soviet repressions to Category:German people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Hungarian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Hungarian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Indian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Indian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Irish victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Irish people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Islamic victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Islamic people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Italian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Italian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Jewish victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Jewish people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Kazakhstani victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Kazakhstani people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Latvian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Latvian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Lithuanian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Lithuanian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Polish victims of Nazi German repressions to Category:Polish people persecuted by political repression in Nazi Germany
Propose renaming Category:Polish victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Polish people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Protestant victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Protestant people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Roman Catholic people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Romanian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Romanian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Russian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Russian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Slovenian victims of Nazi German repressions to Category:Slovenian people persecuted by political repression in Nazi German
Propose renaming Category:Slovenian victims of political repression in Fascist Italy to Category:Slovenian people persecuted by political repression in Fascist Italy
Propose renaming Category:Slovenian victims of political repressions to Category:Slovenian people persecuted by political repression
Propose renaming Category:Slovenian victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia to Category:Slovenian people persecuted by political repression in Communist Yugoslavia
Propose renaming Category:Spanish victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Spanish people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Swedish victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Swedish people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Swiss victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Swiss people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Tajikistani victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Tajikistani people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Ukrainian people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Uzbekistani victims of Soviet repressions to Category:Uzbekistani people persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Apartheid repressions in South Africa to Category:People persecuted by apartheid in South Africa
Propose renaming Category:Victims of communist repressions in Poland to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Poland
Propose renaming Category:Victims of communist repressions in Romania to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Romania
Propose renaming Category:Victims of French political repressions to Category:People persecuted by political repression in France
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Nationalist repressions in China to Category:People persecuted by Nationalist political repression in China
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Nationalist repressions in Spain to Category:People persecuted by Nationalist political repression in Spain
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions by nationality to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Nazi German by nationality
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Nazi repression to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Nazi German
Propose renaming Category:Victims of North Korean political repressions to Category:People persecuted by political repression in North Korean
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Pakistani political repression to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Pakistan
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression to Category:People persecuted by political repression
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression by country to Category:People persecuted by political repression by country
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in Brazil to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Brazil
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in China to Category:People persecuted by political repression in China
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in communist Czechoslovakia to Category:People persecuted by political repression in communist Czechoslovakia
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in communist states to Category:People persecuted by political repression by communist state
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in Fascist Italy to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Fascist Italy
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in Puerto Rico to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Puerto Rico
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in Spain to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Spain
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in Taiwan to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Taiwan
Propose renaming Category:Victims of political repression in Uruguay to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Uruguay
Propose renaming Category:Victims of psychiatric repression to Category:People persecuted by political abuses of psychiatry in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Russian political repressions to Category:People persecuted by political repression in Russia
Propose renaming Category:Victims of South Korean political repressions to Category:People persecuted by political repression in South Korea
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Soviet repressions to Category:People persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Soviet repressions by nationality to Category:People persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union by nationality
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Soviet repressions by religion to Category:People persecuted by political repression in the Soviet Union by religion
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Stalinist repressions in Spain to Category:People persecuted by Stalinist political repression in Spain
My proposed remaming essentially has two variables: political repression and persecuted. The meaning of political repression is set out in the article Political repression. Persecuted is a strong term, much stronger than victim, and requires persistent political repression rather than, say, a one time act of political repression. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Political repression is good enough a parent article to justify this category tree. I'd like to see a decent article on People subjected to political repression or People subjected to political persecution first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this proposal by Uzma Gamal is a well-intentioned effort to narrow the scope of the category. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, because "persecuted" is both POV and lacks clear boundaries. For example, was Dominic McGlinchey a) persecuted by the Govts of both Ireland and the United Kingdom, b) a freedom fighter in a war, or c) a violent criminal? There are plenty of reliable sources to back up any of those three points of view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal by Uzma Gamal appears to derive from a desire to rescue articles which almost everyone on this thread agrees should go. The proposal is an unnecessary 11th hour diversion which doesn't change the basic problems, which I don't think I need to repeat here, in categorizations including terms such as "repression" and "presecuted", which are subjective (i.e. subject to the political position of the editor or author). [email protected] (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Uzma Gamal's proposal includes categories not included in this CFD and ignores others listed by me here, which indicates that the renaming proposal would be unequally applied. [email protected] (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Transport 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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed through with the renaming of all the appropriate Category:Transport disasters by year subcategories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct intermodal transportation authorities to Category:Defunct intermodal transport authorities
Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about transportation to Category:Documentary films about transport
Propose renaming Category:Economics of transportation and utility industries to Category:Economics of transport and utility industries
Propose renaming Category:Free transportation software to Category:Free transport software
Propose renaming Category:Funeral transportation to Category:Funeral transport
Propose renaming Category:Intermodal transportation authorities to Category:Intermodal transport authorities
Propose renaming Category:Military transportation to Category:Military transport
Propose renaming Category:Proposed public transportation to Category:Proposed public transport
Propose renaming Category:Proposed transportation infrastructure by country to Category:Proposed transport infrastructure by country
Propose renaming Category:Proposed transportation infrastructure to Category:Proposed transport infrastructure
Propose renaming Category:Redirects from transportation routes to Category:Redirects from transport routes
Propose renaming Category:Road transportation-related lists to Category:Road transport-related lists
Propose renaming Category:Terrorist incidents against transportation to Category:Terrorist incidents against transport
Propose renaming Category:Transportation articles needing translation from Dutch Wikipedia to Category:Transport articles needing translation from Dutch Wikipedia
Propose renaming Category:Transportation articles needing translation from French Wikipedia to Category:Transport articles needing translation from French Wikipedia
Propose renaming Category:Transportation articles needing translation from German Wikipedia to Category:Transport articles needing translation from German Wikipedia
Propose renaming Category:Transportation articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia to Category:Transport articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia
Propose renaming Category:Transportation articles needing translation from Russian Wikipedia to Category:Transport articles needing translation from Russian Wikipedia
Propose renaming Category:Transportation articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia to Category:Transport articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia
Propose renaming Category:Transportation articles needing translation from Swedish Wikipedia to Category:Transport articles needing translation from Swedish Wikipedia
Propose renaming Category:Transportation buildings and structures to Category:Transport buildings and structures
Propose renaming Category:Transportation by continent to Category:Transport by continent
Propose renaming Category:Transportation companies by country to Category:Transport companies by country
Propose renaming Category:Transportation engineering to Category:Transport engineering
Propose renaming Category:Transportation engineers to Category:Transport engineers
Propose renaming Category:Transportation films to Category:Transport films
Propose renaming Category:Transportation images to Category:Transport images
Propose renaming Category:Transportation lists to Category:Transport lists
Propose renaming Category:Transportation logos to Category:Transport logos
Propose renaming Category:Transportation NGOs to Category:Transport NGOs (or, preferably, Category:Transport non-governmental organizations)
Propose renaming Category:Transportation occupations to Category:Transport occupations
Propose renaming Category:Transportation operations to Category:Transport operations
Propose renaming Category:Transportation-related lists by country to Category:Transport-related lists by country
Propose renaming Category:Transportation user templates to Category:Transport user templates
Propose renaming Category:Vertical transportation devices to Category:Vertical transport devices
Propose renaming Category:Water transportation-related lists to Category:Water transport-related lists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per this nomination which changed Category:Transportation to Category:Transport. There are only six countries where the word "Transportation" is now used on Wikipedia: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the US Virgin Islands. All other areas use "Transport." So the main categories should match the more global usage and the uber-parent Category:Transport, unless there's a compelling reason not to. I did not nominate Category:Transportation planning and Category:Intelligent transportation systems, because of head articles that use "transportation." Also, I left alone the 300 "transportation disasters" subcategories of the Category:Transport disasters by year tree, which we can speedily rename if this passes. For the NGOs category, see this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. I agree that when used as a generic holder category, "transport" should be used to match Category:Transport. The use of "transportation" should be used when appropriate, but only if it is a country- or region-specific category where that terminology predominates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and parent category. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Transport is more widely used, and so would be clearer for the majority of our readers. SilkTork *YES! 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom -- SatuSuro 13:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W[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:Volcanic fields of the western United States; as Vegas points out, there is consensus for change even though it is mixed to what. This solution is the only one that is bot-able. Moving to by state categories is a manual process; if that is desired, please be BOLD and do it. Kbdank71 17:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W to by state categories
Nominator's rationale: Merge to the by state category. By state is the established breakout in the US. There is nothing in the category introduction that would indicate why 109 West is notable for this activity. If kept, rename to Category:Volcanic fields of the United States west of 109°W. Note that in effect this covers all of the US since if you continue west from 109W, you reach it from the east. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 11 November 201--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)0 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query So in the propesed re-naming to Category:Volcanic fields of the Western United States everybody is happy that volcanic fields in Mexico like Pinacate Peaks should be excluded, even though its 113 degrees west? Nobody wants to include the rest of North America? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everyone is happy. I still say delete after moving the contents to the by state tree, or as pointed out late in the discussion to the Canada and Mexico and other country trees as needed. If the purpose of the category is to have the activity for the last 100 Ma, then that should be created with a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animanga infoboxes with duplicate parameters[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Conforms with the naming convention of similar error checking categories of the {{Infobox animanga}} family as well as their parent category Category:Anime and manga articles with malformed infoboxes. —Farix (t | c) 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've never cared for these names; the proposed ones are a lot better. Perhaps the second one should be something like Category:Anime and manga articles with identical "first" and "last" infobox parameters, though? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind the quotes, but are they permitted in category names? —Farix (t | c) 19:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to alliterate as to why having the same |first= and |last= were not included in the first category. It is because this type of "error" is the result of incomplete information instead of unnecessary redundancies in infobox parameters. —Farix (t | c) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer both of your questions... If you can use a character in an article name, you can also use it for category names, and "first" and "last" are not included in the redundant category because it's not actually a case of redundant information; usually, it's a matter of the info not being specific enough (if a series started and ended in the same year, for instance, and the infobox only notes the start/end year), though sometimes it can just be that one of the values isn't correct. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film-related locations[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 Category:Film-related locations to Category:Film production districts. Category:Filming locations needs further discussion in its own nomination, and some subcategorization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film-related locations to Category:Film districts
Nominator's rationale: Poor choice of name, as it may be confused with Filming locations. I am not married to the suggested rename target, however. Anyone got a better idea? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a category doesn't mean that we're forced to include every location into it. In particular, there must be any number of films shot in Times Square, but it wouldn't be useful (as it's self-evident) to categorise it. However Freshwater West or Blackhall Colliery should be, as they are generally unrecognised places that were used in iconic films - their inclusion adds something. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you're right. I didn't notice this other category and likely the creator of the latest one didn't, either. Lots of films get shot in lots of places. I think there does need to be merge, with this combined category restricted to areas or facilities uniquely or primarily defined by filming activity, it seems to me. I'd be happy with Category:Film production districts as the target, with the other two merged into it and clear description written. I'll tag Category:Filming locations for this CfD, too. Oh, and the first category should have been deleted, it seems to me. It was closed as rename last year even though the only !vote was for deletion, here. Otto was right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theories of metaphor[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:Metaphor. Kbdank71 17:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Theories of metaphor to Category:Metaphors
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to sole parent. (I have nominated the other current parent cat for deletion, below) per WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Category contents consist of a handful of articles about metaphor (to varying degrees) that can better be contained in the parent category, if at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theories of tropes[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. Upmerging would put Category:Metaphor into a category it doesn't belong in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Theories of tropes to Category:Tropes
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge This category represents a misunderstanding -- or misuse -- of the term "philosophy" A "theory" about a trope is not philosophical theory, as it is currently categorized. More abstract articles about tropes should simply be categorized in the eponymous category, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Upcoming chips[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 there are no objections. Kbdank71 17:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Upcoming chips to Category:Upcoming integrated circuits
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category (Integrated circuits) and to disambiguate from the vague "chips". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parent 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: rename. This is by nature WP jargon, and will need to be explained (and is) in the category header. It'll help if the category is named the same as the template.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parent categories to Category:Container categories
Nominator's rationale: The current title of this tracking category, which is populated by transclusions of {{Container category}}, is misleading. On Wikipedia, the term "parent category" denotes a category which contains one or more subcategories ("A is said to be a parent category of B when B is a subcategory of A"); the term "container category" denotes a category which contains only subcategories (and possibly a limited number of directly related pages). All container categories are parent categories, but not all parent categories are container categories.
What is being categorized by this category is container categories, so the title should be renamed to reflect this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background note: The template that populates this category originally was named {{Parent category}}, but it was renamed one year ago per a TFD discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there maybe a better word? "Parent" at least gives the suggestion of a bracketing hierarchy of some kind (similar to a family tree). And, AFAIK, is a common term for this. "Container" suggests encapsulation, or worse, enclosure. See also: Parent (disambiguation) as opposed to Container. - jc37 19:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is a term that is more intuitive and descriptive than "container", but "parent" is much too broad. For instance, Category:Swiss artists is a parent category of Category:Swiss painters, but it would not belong in the category we're discussing. I am not too worried about "container" being confusing since the text of {{Container category}} clearly explains the meaning of the phrase and this is a hidden tracking category not intended for readers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying. So we retain the term "parent" category, but use "container" for this specific type of "parent" category. (Aren't semantics fun? : ) - jc37 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, essentially. :) If I'm not mistaken, the current usage of the phrase "container category" was coined by Cgingold (first use?), who also created {{Container-cat}} (currently a redirect). There are a few uses of the phrase prior to 2008, but they seem to relate to eponymous or disambiguation categories. Another option, of course, would be to just delete the category, as you suggested in the 2009 discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reminding me : ) - jc37 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you;'re saying that "container category" has onterh uses as well as the one being considered here? Doesn't sound like a good thing to rename this to, then! Grutness...wha? 23:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I'm still hoping that we can find a better/closer term : ) - jc37 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category. Special:WhatLinksHere should accomplish what little need there may be for this category, since it's solely template-populated. - jc37 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Question. Will the deletion of this category in any way affect the display of the container/parent category banner? JackJud (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't. The template (banner) would remain, even if this category is deleted. - jc37 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question with deletion is, Is there are reason to specifically group parent categories together like this? I'm not sure. The reason for keeping would be systematic review of all the categories therein to see if they were improperly populated with individual pages. This could potentially be accomplished by looking at what links here on the template to see all the pages that transclude the template, however. Assuming a bot would go through this, my hesitation to delete would be if it being a category would make such a bot task easier than it having to go through transclusions. Additionally, any category that improperly subst'd the template wouldn't show up on the transclusions list, while a category would remain on the page if this happened. As for renaming, I've grown used to calling them parent categories, and don't really like container categories as a name for this. I wouldn't be opposed to something else though...top-level categories? Supercategories? VegaDark (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that bots should have any problem using WhatLinksHere. If they do, it's easy enough to grab the list (using AWB) from WhatLinksHere and generate a bulleted list. Incorrectly substituted instances of the template could be detected and fixed by adding the code provided at Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates.
    "Top-level category" brings to mind the likes of Category:Wikipedia books (i.e., the top-level category of a very large category tree). "Supercategory" may be a working option, thought it carries a potentially incorrect connotation of large size or broad scope (compare usage in Simulation video games and Krugosvet). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent a compelling reason to keep, I will support deleting this tracking category. The "systematic review" to which VegaDark refers (and that appears to be the only potential use for this category) almost certainly could be achieved via Special:WhatLinksHere and/or a database report for container categories (or whatever we choose to call them) which contain non-category pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming if the category is kept. The new name will match the name of the template that populates it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Parent-only categories. There's no point in having two names for the same thing, and I'd wager good money that the term "parent" is far more widely used on Wikipedia for the upper level categories with subtypes than "container" is. In any case, both have the same linguistic problem, since all categories are containers -they all contain either subcategories or articles. Calling them "Parent-only" gets around this problem by making it clear that they only serve as holders for subcategories. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they're not "parent-only". Container categories can contain some articles. And "parent-only" sounds like it means they're top level categories, which most are not. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the way the term "parent-only" is used on WP. It doesn't suggest anything about whether it's top-level (a category that's parent-only may still have parents of its own). "Parent-only" means that it only contains subcategories (i.e., what you call a "container category"). BTW, re-the comment about "the category which feeds it", it's fed by both {{Container category}} and {{Parent-only stub category}}, though i'll admit that the latter template is new. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks for clearing that up, but not all container categories are parent-only. Some are just large topic categories that are mostly divided into subcategories but contain a few articles, usually an eponymous article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm. Okay - I hadn't realised that, sorry. Back to the drawing board... Grutness...wha? 09:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Substituted 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: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Substituted templates to Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates
Nominator's rationale: This category serves the same purpose as Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. Even though Category:Substituted templates has been around longer than the other cat, the "substituted templates" is an ambiguous category title. For example, it could also refer to templates that must be substituted, or pages with templates that have been substituted. My third reason to merge this category into Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates is that many templates that should be transcluded have code in them that will add the page on which they are substituted to Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. (Explanation fail.) cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, clarity and simplicity all the way. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-free Wikipedia files[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Non-free Wikipedia files to Category:Wikipedia non-free files
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions, "[c]ategories used for Wikipedia administration" should be "prefixed with the word 'Wikipedia' (no colon)"; see, for example, Category:Wikipedia non-free content. The scope of the category is "non-free files", and the prefix "Wikipedia" is needed to indicate that this is a "category used for Wikipedia administration". The current title suggests that the category contains non-free files related to Wikipedia or non-free files belonging to Wikipedia. There are a handful of categories which follow the same naming style, and I will list them for renaming if there is consensus to rename in this discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Category:Non-free files" - per "if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories". Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All articles to be expanded[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:All articles to be expanded (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We have Category:Articles to be expanded by month where everything is organised by months. I don't see the reason to have all pages in a single category with 100k items. Nowadays we have tools to sum number of pages in subcategories, we have bots to organise everything by month, etc. I suggest we delete this category as it serves no purpose and only forces us to double categorise everything. See similar discussion in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_12#Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements where the creator suggests deletion too. Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, page is clearly in use (by editors directly, or by bots), as evidenced by its pretty high view rate[1]. As a hidden cat that is automatically added (and removed) through the template, no one is forced to double any categories, it happens without any effort and is hidden anyway. 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete was created for purposes now obsolete. For those who choose to see hidden cats (or use the edit function) it is clutter. The page hits (170 per day) sound like a lot but are merely equivalent to each screenfull being viewed about 1/3 of a time per day (200 entries per page, 100,000 entries, 500 screens). Rich Farmbrough, 09:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
How does it create clutter when editing? It is not visible then... And of course, dividing the page views by the number of pages is not correct, the category may be accessed by e.g. AWB or a randomize function as well, very few people (if any) will actually scroll through all the pages, but just jump to whatever page they want. Fram (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll down you will see a list of hidden categories. And it is exactly correct, because I am saying equivalent. I am inclined to think that these hits are purely some search engine or tool, for the simple reason that there is nothing to bring people to the category (apart from hidden links and the list in edit mode). The clean up projects all work off dated cats, the cats are, as you say, hidden. Why would someone visit the cat page? Moreover if there was that level of people viewing it, some would arrive at the CfD. I use these hidden categories extensively, and the presence of the "all" categories makes my work harder - it is a shame that you disputed that before I hope you will take my word for it this time. Rich Farmbrough, 09:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
If you consider one extra line at the very bottom of the page when editing (but not in the editing screen) as clutter which is bad enough to delete a cat, then you have very low levels of tolerance for clutter... "Moreover if there was that level of people viewing it, some would arrive at the CfD." If you use categories through AWB, random functions, ..., you don't notice that the cat is up for deletion, you don't view the cat directly but use the contents of it. They may make your work harder (and I don't think I disputed that, although I don't see the problem you have with them), but they make the work of other people easier. I use them regularly as well, and I find them convenient, requiring very little maintenance in general, being in the way of very few people, but useful to me and others. That's the nature of most hidden cats. Fram (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bots can use the Articles to be expanded by month category and its subcategories. I also don't see how a bot could be unable to work with subcategories. Moreover, this editors are adviced to start fixing pages which that need to be expanded starting with the one with the older tag. The main reason is that probably these tags are outdated. And there is something else: This deletion will help us to simplify lot of templates that now add pages to both categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Said "simplification" exists of the removal of the line "|cat=[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]]" from e.g. Template:Citation needed. Not really the most complex code or the most impressive gain you get by this deletion. Apart from that: yes, bots and editors can use other categories and subcategories for this, but why should they? Why use a recursive, subcategory search when you can do it in one go? And editors are not adviced to start sourcing the oldest pages first, it is just one of the options. Any unsourced page that is fixed, any unsourced statement that is sourced, is a gain for Wikipedia, and we should provide editors with as many means as possible. Removing one option and expecting them to just switch to another option because one bot operator would have less trouble coding his bot is not a convincing reason for deletion in my opinion. Fram (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the reason why for {{expand}} it's important to work by date. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not to do with coding. It's that there are already many cleanup categories on articles, and when you are manually looking for the undated ones any extra cruft is clutter. I did provide an illustration of this. Rich Farmbrough, 09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Rather an extreme example, that one (and one that doesn't even have the actual category up for deletion here...) Looking at articles in this category, I see usually two to six hidden categories, which isn't that much of a problem surely. Fram (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful meta-category for bots and for getting a total count of articles needing expansion. I see no harm in keeping this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Total count is available from the progress box. Rich Farmbrough, 09:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      • Note that e.g. the Category:Wikipedia backlog and the Template:Backlog count give incorrect, way too low figures for a number of categories, e.g. "Need updating: 56" should be "Need updating: 4,818" and "External links cleanup: 26" should be "External links cleanup: 2,099". Using the count from the "all" categories would probably result in less errors (and for those where the "all" category doesn't exist yet, we should perhaps create it)... Fram (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful maintenance category. This is a bizarre nomination, because I see no evidence that the existence of the category causes any problems for either readers or editors, but it is useful for bots. So by deleting it we'd gain nothing; and by deleting it we would either lose some bot functions or put the bot-owners to a lot of work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am motivated by the WP:KISS principle. No reason to double-count. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT law enforcement workers[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. Kbdank71 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT law enforcement workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pretty much direct violation of WP:BLPCAT regarding sexual orientation:
  1. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life

Also an WP:OCAT irrelevant intersection per:

  1. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created;
Also worth noting most of the people in this cat are not famous for being cops, but rather for something else. Bulldog123 09:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of law enforcement personnel have taken a public stance on LGBT issues, through organisations such as http://www.gay.police.uk, http://www.lgbt-police.org.uk and http://www.tcops-international.org, so this is not an an irrelevant intersection like Baseball players with kidney stones. An encyclopedic head article could indeed be written on the subject: start with this search.
    However, per WP:CATGRS, this categ should only be used for law enforcement personnel who are notable as LGBT officers, and not for notable officers who happen to be LGBT. A renaming may be helpful to reflect this, but I cannot immediately think of a suitable title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WT:LGBT has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl. The nominator might reflect that having articles in the category that don't belong there doesn't indicate that the category should be deleted, but that the article(s) should be removed. The category itself is worth having due to the reliable sources on the topic - see "Coming Out from Behind the Badge" by Greg Miraglia, Gay Police Association, LEGAL international, "Good Cop, Gay Cop" by Erik Meers in The Advocate (3 March 1998), etc. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as these law enforcement officers generally are noted also for their being LGBT, irrespective of the reason for this. I wonder though about reserving this category for "LGBT officers". What is an LGBT officers? Police force–LGBT community liaisons? __meco (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Bath[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. Kbdank71 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Propose rename:

Reason: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 6#Category:Bath - disambiguate title. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. (Are these not speediable, following the rename of Category:Bath, Somerset?) Occuli (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the rename of Cat:Bath makes it clear that we are talking about a place. That is clear from context in these names. In toponymy, this Bath is clearly the primary meaning. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, to match the parent category Category:Bath, Somerset and the main article Bath, Somerset. There's no reason for the subcategories to use different terminology than the parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but verbosity is the enemy of.. non-verbosity. Rich Farmbrough, 09:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, to match the parent category Category:Bath, Somerset and the main article Bath, Somerset. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article and category. Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really this is slightly perverse. Bath would never be known as "Bath, Somerset" the article and cat only have the name to disambiguate them from the thing you bathe in. Bath (town) would actually be a better title. To propagate this egregious solecism, initially used of perceived necessity, would be unfortunate. Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • There is another city at Category:Bath, Maine, not to mention a bunch of other places that don't have categories. It is ambiguous as a placename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it would be perverse to have one disambiguator for the head article but a different one for the categories. That would place an unnecessary obstacle-course in the way of an editor trying to find the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if you think this maning scheme is a problem, feel free to discuss moving the top category and its article to a better disambiguated name, and these categories will follow. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The categories for the (original) Birmingham, have to have the suffix "England" to ensure that they do not attract entries from Birmingham, AL. The parent category needs to be "Bath, Somerset" to ensure that it does not attract entries relating to baths and bathing, but this is not necessary for the subcats, which obviously refer to a place. Bath Abbey is a cathedral; accordingly Bath is a city (not a town). We might rename the article and the parent category to "City of Bath" or "Bath (city)"; if so the present forms should be retained as redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearly there is no reason for an exception here. The argument that since these are place name related categories and not needing to change is specious since there are at least a score of places called Bath. You should not have to move up to the parent category to figure out what place these are for. In addition, how does that work when you are in a tree other then Category:Bath, Somerset? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Continental Divide in Wyoming[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 and purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Continental Divide in Wyoming to Category:Great Divide of North America
Propose merging Category:Continental Divide in New Mexico to Category:Great Divide of North America (which needs cleaning out which I will do. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not convinced that we need to break out the continental divide by state. I think I might even oppose a split by country if done before the parent is overloaded. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it is possible that User:Hike796 has created some viable categories but this is not one of them. Occuli (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Railway stations in United States historic districts[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. Kbdank71 17:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway stations in United States historic districts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category. The only article included should not be here since the article is about the town that contained the station and not on the station. In addition, the parent category is also inappropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is one of the least viable of User:Hike796's many creations. A better name might be 'towns with historic districts containing a building which used to be a railway station (now a restaurant)'. Occuli (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OC#TRIVIA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a random NN intersection. What constitutes a "historic district" inevitably involves an issue of POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North American Waterfowl Management Plan[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. The category creator seems to be populating this at a reasonable speed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:North American Waterfowl Management Plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created the category with the expectation that the 23 redlinks in North American Waterfowl Management Plan would eventually become articles, with their primary category being this one. Each of those redlinks is a potential and viable WP article, with verifiable third-party information about each available on the internet. I'll create a few of those this week, including Canadian Intermountain Joint Venture which I just added. Mindmatrix 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason why the article does not provide sufficient navigation between the articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories provide different functionality. Some people find articles of interest by drilling through categories instead of reading articles. Moreover, the categories are used to group articles of related content, functionality which links do not provide. Mindmatrix 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Do you plan on creating more of these articles? What is your timeframe? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though like every other page on Wikipedia, there is no time frame. Mindmatrix 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5 articles in a logical category with room for growth is good enough for me. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lake Borgne Watershed[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lake Borgne Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Galveston Bay Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mobile Bay Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hillsborough Bay Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gulf of California Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Puget Sound Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pacific North American Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry categories which contains the only articles on the wiki that mentions each Watershed. There is one case of an additional article that mentions a portion of a specific watershed, but it is not likely that Earth Economics would be included as a member. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific North American Watershed added since the only contents would be deleted if this proposal receives support. There are no additional mentions of the Pacific North American Watershed on the wiki. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it is possible that User:Hike796 has created some viable categories but these are not amongst them. Occuli (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kmusser (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Murdered mobsters by ethnic or national origin[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Murdered mobsters by ethnic or national origin to Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This can simply be renamed to a "by nationality" category since all the ethnic or national origin categories are subcategories of the by-nationality ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given how sparse the tree is, do we need the by nationality categories? I'm leaning towards an upmerge to both parents or some variation. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be OK with me. There's a good argument that it's not needed at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename Yes, wow. It doesn't even appear these mobsters were murdered because of their ethnicity. Bulldog123 09:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Murdered gangsters by nationality. "Mobster" is an Americanism, presumably direived from the mafia being called "the mob". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Murdered American people of Irish descent[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: upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Murdered American people of Irish descent to Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American murder victims
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This seems like an arbitrary intersection to me. With the exception of the mobsters subcategory, there is no connection between these people's Irish descent and the fact that they were murdered. I suggest a double upmerge, including the subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_13&oldid=1211679115"