Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:Controversy before publication[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Controversy before publication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Apparently created as a custom category for a single unpublished book. Ill-defined criterion for inclusion and awkward name in any case. Pichpich (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an almost empty cat with vague definition. --Lenticel (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like the concept, and I don't think it will show to be very hard to decide what does and doesn't belong in it. I think we have a number of articles that would fit this category and they will trickle in if we leave the category in place. It has just been created. If we decide to keep it for now in a good faith posture, we can return here in a year if it by then hasn't proven its usefulness and viability. __meco (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, meaninglessly vague. The problem is too much would belong in it, and the resulting collection of articles would have no useful, substantive relationship, and certainly no relationship that has been documented elsewhere first. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like the concept too, and can recall some historical and recent precedents (although calling any adverse reaction against writer or publisher, or any act of censorship "a controversy" is not justified). But in the modern world "controversy before publication" is usually nothing but a marketing trick, and the category is an advertizing magnet. More importantly, there are hardly any instances where "... before publication" is a defining feature of the work. East of Borschov (talk) 07:32, 11 June 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:Black Market Activities[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 June 17#Category:Black Market Activities. — ξxplicit 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black Market Activities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a relatively minor record label. No category is the overwhelming standard for Category:American record labels and the three pages in the current cat could probably be merged. Pichpich (talk) 23:52, 9 June 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:Tamarins and marmosets[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tamarins and marmosets to Category:Callitrichidae
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article, Callitrichidae. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 9 June 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:Comus albums[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, Nom withdrawn. Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comus albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category since the band has only ever released two substantive albums, and this cat is unlikely ever to grow further. Rodhullandemu 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I'll withdraw this nomination. Sorry, it passed me by. Rodhullandemu 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even one-album wonders should have their own album category. Pichpich (talk) 01:24, 10 June 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:Electric vehicle fleets[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric vehicle fleets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another essentially empty category from Nopetro. There are no articles in the category on electric vehicle fleets, and none exist at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an empty cat. Current articles inside the category does not belong to it at all. --Lenticel (talk) 06:27, 10 June 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:Phillips, Craig and Dean[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Phillips, Craig and Dean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak Delete: I created it, and it seems unneeded now due to Category:Phillips, Craig and Dean albums. TN05 21:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Creator is okay with deletion as well.--Lenticel (talk) 06:25, 10 June 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:Ricky Vela[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ricky Vela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category. (Ample precedent here...) Pichpich (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – nothing here other than the 'songs written by' subcat. Occuli (talk) 15:28, 9 June 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:AFL amputees[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AFL amputees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and possibly convert into a list. There are a number of problems here. First, it's not really a defining characteristic. Second, there is no subcategorization of Category:Amputees. Third, an amputee is someone who had a limb amputated not, as is the case here, someone who lost a finger or part of a finger. Pichpich (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The first subcategory of Category:Amputees should not be for people who played for a particular football league, of all things. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These people lost a finger, all of them by choice. Not a defining characterstic -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:19, 14 June 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:Cartier[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cartier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization for a single page (whose importance is itself questionable). If kept, it should at the very least be renamed as "Cartier SA" or "Jewellery by Cartier SA". Pichpich (talk) 13:41, 9 June 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:Eurovision Song Contest composers[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. Any editor is feel to listify if necessary. — ξxplicit 20:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eurovision Song Contest composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Eurovision Song Contest composers to Category:Eurovision Song Contest winning songwriters. Composers refers only to music, not lyrics. The term songwriter includes both music and lyrics (and arrangement). all people who ever wrote for the ESC are far too many, it is better to list only the winners for a start. the songwriters are the actual winners of the ESC, by the way, not the performers, the songwriters get the prize. it is a songwriter contest. so it is currently correct to list all winning songwriters as "winners" also. If you find a better title like "Eurovision Song Contest winner songwriters", please propose, I am not a native speaker.E-Kartoffel (talk) (E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose - First of all, the category right now is for ESC composers, not for ESC winning composers, i.e. it is meant to contain all composers that contributed to the contest, not only those who won it. And why not keep this category and establish a new Category:Eurovision Song Contest lyricists? There is no need to put all contributors in one single monster category. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:OC this is overcategorization of composers by the venue in which their composition was performed. Composers can write for any number of specific venues or contests, and have their songs performed at venues or contests for which the composition was not specifically written, so any number of these sorts of categories could end up on an article. I'm assuming from the article that songs aren't written specifically for ESF, but even if they are I don't see that as overriding the consensus as expressed at OC. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @E-Kartoffel: before making such a change in the scope of Category:Eurovision Song Contest winners it would have been a good thing to discuss it and try to reach a consensus, especially the discussion here about the rename affects the other category as well. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete -- This is essentially an awards category, whehter it is limited to winners or is more inclusive. The relevant list will probably be a list of songs with performer and composer, etc. It may well already exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:27, 18 June 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:Issue of Christian IX of Denmark[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Issue of Christian IX of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. per WP:OC#SMALL. All members of the category are already in the parent category Category:House of Glücksburg (Denmark) and are already linked at Christian IX of Denmark in both the infobox and by the template Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark, 1903-1947 Coat of arms). There are links between the siblings within each of the articles. DrKiernan (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to categorize people by parent or ancestor. Doing so could quickly get out of hand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:18, 14 June 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:Southern rock groups[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 as nominated. I'm well aware that there are various inconsistencies when comes to categories where genres and the use of "music" comes to play. Because of the lack of conformity, the nominated category will simply be merged; a larger, focused nomination will be needed to determine whether these categories should use "music", "musical" or just omit the entire word. — ξxplicit 20:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Southern rock groups to Category:Southern rock musical groups
Nominator's rationale: These essentially treat the exact same topic. "music groups" is more standard. Munci (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm well the category Rock music groups by genre might be named "rock music groups" but most of its subcategories are named either "rock groups" or "(rock) musical groups". To be honest, I'm not that bothered what the actually target turns out as; just saying. Munci (talk) 23:33, 9 June 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:Date of birth unknown[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 both. — ξxplicit 20:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Date of birth unknown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Date of death unknown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Following a discussion in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_14#Categories_related_to_birth_and_death and some other to the past, I suggest that we delete Date of birth/death unknown categories.

To recall: Unknown means no record of birth/death exists. Not unknown to us in WP but unknown to everyone.

  • It's almost impossible to verify to which cases the Dates are unknown
  • It's most likely that the Year is unknown too so the "Year of birth/death unknown" applies to these cases
  • There is a big confusion with "... missing" categories. Check current members of the category. My bot, Yobot, has been correcting these cases for more than a year. I didn't find any example that this category was used correctly.
  • If the dates are unknown this can be made clear in the body text.

PS Please limit the discussion to these categories only. I am planning to do some more similar nominations AFTER this discussion closes. Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments – clearly 'Date of birth unknown' is not a defining characteristic of a person and there is little point in gathering together such disparate people unless there is some administrative/maintenance advantage. Also Category:Date of birth unknown does include a lot of talk pages ... is there anything to be said for retaining the cat but restricting it to talk pages? Occuli (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DOB unknown was placed in the talk pages till consensus changed some days ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes - it always helps the read the linked cfd in the nom before opining ... they have become hidden categories on articles. I can't myself see any point in keeping these 2, so delete is fine by me. Occuli (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usefulness in these two categories lies in that the articles in them are siphoned away from COB/COD missing, which are maintenance categories identifying issues to be addressed whereas for articles in these two categories the issue has been adequately investigated with negative result and it is believed that further investigations would be futile. If we delete these two categories, the articles in them would have to be re-categorized into the COB/COD missing categories nullifying the past find that attempts to retrieve the missing information has been deemed futile. __meco (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have 10 examples of articles that fit in this category? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are by my count 553 articles in these categories currently. Couldn't you pick ten of them yourself randomly? __meco (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I checked at least 100 of them and a) they should be in year of birth/death unknown or b) no evidence that the date is really unknown. I am not convinced that there is no birth certificate for baseball players of the 30s. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of what I mean. I just picked 1 article at random. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an excellent example since he was born in 1947. Given age and date of death, the birth year is known. Or for that matter, any date and age in their lifetime, he was 57 on February 24, 2004. Since he served in the military, his birth date is known and documented. What is correct in this case is that the specific date of his birth has not been uncovered. Another problem with this is how it is applied. Is Jesus listed in this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 16:19, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
The article mentioned by Magioladitis doesn't state he was born in 1947. Where did you get that information from?
Jesus is not in the nominated or any of the related categories. He is in Category:0s BC births which means that the exact year is unknown. The only thing I can think of in relation to your question is the idea of having a Category:Exact year of birth unknown. Do you think we need that, or do you think he should be in one of the existing ones, i.e. year or date of birth missing? __meco (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point about Jesus is that he should be in the nominated category. But guessing his birth year seems to be acceptable since the date is listed as about. As to Category:0s BC births, that says it is know within a ten year window. So it that unknow? Yes. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? This person isn't even in this category? He was spuriously categorised into it. That is hardly an argument for deleting the category? If I categorized your user page into Category:Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba, should this category be put up for deletion also because (and I'm wildly speculating) you aren't a huge fan of this Indian mystic? __meco (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am maintaining these categories for more than a year and these things are more than common -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't understand why you would want to delete the category because many users wrongly categorize into it. That is a poor indicator of the intrinsic usefulness of the category. Wouldn't it be more useful to address the obvious communication problem of relaying the contradistinction between these categories to the average user? __meco (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bit I give 4 reasons to delete. Not just one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, document better, add to WP:PERENNIAL along with all other related categories, and possibly rename. Keep for every reason given in every similar debate in the past. This and the other categories in this series are perennial deletion nominations (and should be listed at WP:PERENNIAL). Re-nominating them again and again without evidence that consensus has changed does not change consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CCC and WP:FORUMSHOP (Clarification: I mean this toward to opponents of this category collectively, over time, not this nominator in particular)— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC). Also, the deletion nomination's logic is faulty: All of the date and year categories of this sort share the same non-problem that if the date is unknown (in this sense, or in the sense of knowable but not specified here yet - different categories) then the year is often unknown and if the year is unknown the date is unknown by definition. The already-established way to handle this (i.e., please do your homework) is to use the year version if the year is unknown, and not use the date version unless the year is known but the full date it not. Further, the fact that some editors miscategorize date-missing articles as date-unknown simply means that these individuals should be apprised of the difference when they make this mistake, and that the difference should be better documented, not that one of the categories should be deleted; that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. A rename could be a possibility ("Category:Date of x unknown to historians" maybe?). And, of course, there are a great many notables for whom full dates, years and places of birth and death are sourceably unknown, mostly figures from the Renaissance to antiquity, "third-world" individuals, and people who have gone missing and whose bodies have never been found. Yes, of course baseball players from the 1930s have birth certificates somewhere; their presence in the wrong category is simply PEBKAC. Meco, above, adequately explains what the difference between the "missing" and "unknown" categories is, and why both exist. So, I've just addressed why this is a pointless nomination. In closing, I'm tempted to suggest speedy keep here because this nomination is a rehash of numerous previous discussions. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D you know that the placement of this category (mainspace vs talk page) has changed 3 or 4 times? I am not sure if it was nominated for deletion in the past but I can find it out. I am not sure where do you see longstanding consensus and where I am canvassing. I am maintaining this category for more than 1 year and it's the first time I am nominating for deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you personally are canvassing, but rather that opponents, collectively, of this category bringing it up again and again in multiple places and multiple times has the same effect as forum shopping/asking the other parent, and repeatedly claiming that consensus has changed when it hasn't. I apologize for coming across as insinuating an accusation about you particularly (I was in a hurry and did not critically re-read what I wrote), and I don't think you and I have issues or anything. Yes, I'm aware of the back-and-forth on the placement. I would have been (may actually have been; I misremember) supportive of talk page placement, as I have been for things like Category:Place of birth missing, and Category:Date of death missing (as opposed to Category:Year of death missing) but last I looked there was sensible opposition to the whole idea, because we now have hidden categories, obviating any need to manually hide them by moving them to the talk page. I understand that you find lots of badly-placed entries in that category (which is why I suggest it needs better documentation and probably a rename), but any historical figure for whom date of birth or death is truly unknown qualifies for these categories. Anyone who went missing, whose body was never found, and who would be older than, say, 122 (world verified record), also belongs in the death unknown category. These categories could even help automated cleanup, if they're improved as I suggest to discourage misuse: Any article with both the "unknown" and the "missing" version could safely have the "missing" version removed (on the grounds that any editor sure that the date was known and simply missing from the article would/should have removed the "unknown" tag). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These categories serve an important purpose in allowing cleanup of BLPs and other biographies. That the word "unknown" is less than perfect is a great reason to find an alternative, rather than a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Date of..." has nothing to do with BLP. "Year of..." is enough. If the exact date is unknown it doesn't play any role. By the way, if you read instructions to Date of birth missing (living people) you ll discover that this category is misused too. 22:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This category is generated by {{BD}} and cognate templates in biography articles. However many articles have had the template converted into categories. There is a destinction between UNKNOWN and MISSING. Missing should be used where the date should be available in a WP:RS but does not apperar in WP. "Unknown" refers to the situation where a date is undiscoverable, though it would always be better to put the date as (e.g.) 1520s if known approximately. Unknown and Missing categories should never appear for the same event in both articles, but {{BD|UNKNOWN|MISSING}} would be approopriate for a person whose death should be knwon (but is not given), but whose birth cannot be discovered. This issue applies more in distant periods than recent ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although a minority of editors have continued, over the three-year period of these two categories' existence, to confuse the application of "Date" and "Year" (such miscomprehension extends, of course, to all five "Date" categories), that distinction has always been made clear, for those who spared the time to take note, in the explanatory text accompanying each of the categories. Compared to the 47,340 entries in Category:Year of birth missing (living people) or the 9,824 entries in Category:Year of birth missing (these two were formerly commingled under "Year of birth missing"), the 305 entries in Category:Date of birth unknown and the 251 entries in Category:Date of death unknown, may seem to indicate infrequent usage, but their absence would unbalance the analogous nature of the five "Date missing/unknown", five "Year missing/unknown" and five "Place missing/unknown" categories. Before the creation of "Date unknown", such individuals as the Renaissance artist Domenico Ghirlandaio, whose year of birth is noted in contemporary records, but whose day and month of birth are considered lost to history, were routinely placed in Category:Date of birth missing, thus making it appear that the lack of specific birth information is due to incomplete research. Doubtless, a fair number of entries currently in "Date of birth/death missing" should be in "Date of birth/death unknown" and vice versa, a task which can only continue if this entire grouping of maintenance categories be allowed to remain.—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:28, 20 June 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.

Ambassadors to Texas[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors to Texas to Category:Ambassadors to the Republic of Texas
Propose renaming Category:United States ambassadors to Texas to Category:United States ambassadors to the Republic of Texas
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Of course, these were ambassadors to the Republic of Texas, not to Texas. A rename will match these to their parents Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas and Category:Republic of Texas. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 9 June 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:Councillors in Kettering[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 to Category:Councillors in Northamptonshire; the county level seems to be the norm here. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Councillors in Kettering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Local councillors are inherently non-notable. This category currently has three members. Two are up for AFD (which one might possibly survive). The third member is now an MP. I would not oppose upmerge to Category:Councillors in the East Midlands if others prefer. This is the only current subcategory of that one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 9 June 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:Tomy[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tomy to Category:Takara Tomy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This matches the main article for the merged companies. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent company.--Lenticel (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 10 June 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:SunCruz Casinos[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SunCruz Casinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defunct company in bankruptcy. There is no need for the single entry category where the sole article is correctly parented. If in the future the category can be adequately populated, then it can be recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other cats serves the article nicely, no need for this one.--Lenticel (talk) 05:26, 9 June 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:Gosport Ferry Company Ltd[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 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gosport Ferry Company Ltd to Category:Gosport Ferry
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a similar request at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_1#Category:Hornby_Hobbies where the consensus appears to be heading towards giving the category the name of the holding company rather than the name of the article. This proposal is going the opposite way. I have no strong views either way; do we need consistency for these articles/categories or just do it on an ad-hoc basis. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are decided on a case by case basis and I don't see that discussion affecting this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Changing to Rename to Category:Gosport Ferry. In any case the current name is wrong (the article states "It is currently operated by Gosport Ferry Ltd, a subsidiary of the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company plc, itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Falkland Islands Holdings"). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:11, 10 June 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:Corporate 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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Corporate culture to Category:Organizational culture
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with main article. Pnm (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 9 June 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:Job search engines[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Job search engines to Category:Employment websites
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with rename of main article. Pnm (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Pichpich (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to match the main article, which correctly states that a 'job search engine' is a particular type of technology used on some, but not all, 'employment websites'. Also, a review of the category article content indicates it includes articles on all kinds of employment websites, not just those using a job search engine. Hmains (talk) 16:04, 11 June 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:City and town halls[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, but without prejudice against speedily renominating with a more concrete proposal. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls - split or do something else?
Nominator's rationale: do something. Given the recent discussions on cites and towns, this probably deserves a discussion before any action. The main article, city and town halls, looks like a name made up by someone who could not decide on a name and we wind up with a badly named article. For most of these, they probably should be split, but there may be somewhere this naming might make sense. Also, village halls are being included in this category, so no matter what, something needs fixing. One possibility would be to rename to something like Category:Buildings that house municipal governments or some such to explain the purpose and allow it to exist as a parent and then split the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support the quest for "a better something", thus effectively oppose anything radical. I don't like the idea of "that house municipal governments": the larger city govts spread over quite a lot of buildings. The idea behind the category, as I understand it, to list only the buildings that are the principal seats of their legislators or executives: one city = one current entry. And please don't bring the "populated places" curse into this area :)) East of Borschov (talk)
  • "Municipal" would work in the U.S., where all cities and towns with their own governments are municipalities, but not necessarily in other countries. Would Category:Local government buildings be clear? postdlf (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This category is not meant for all local government buildings, but only the single building in a given town or city that is the seat of government of that city or town. The current name may be the best: it certainly is what buildings are referred to as in the real world: 'City Hall' or 'Town Hall' and is the name used in the multitute of sub-categories and sub-sub-categories here--which are not proposed for rename. Hmains (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you opposed to spitting into Category:City halls and Category:Town halls? I should add that there is some discussion on other nominations about the appropriateness of this type of category at the top of the tree. Not all towns are equal and may in fact represent very different organizations. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have a lot of articles on non-town hall local government buildings? At the very least, city and town halls are a subset of local government buildings, so isn't it reasonable to start with that category before focusing on the more specific? postdlf (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that there are a few. What we probably have a lot more of are village halls and meeting houses which are used by other forms of government for the same purpose. Also, are these names used in all countries? In France , Hôtel de Ville is used for both city and town halls. In the end, I think we need to split the city and town categories adding the others and then come up with a good name for the parent category. A rename of the main article probably needs to be considered along the way. I also see that Rathaus (council house) is also apparently used in some countries. A possible name for the parent article could be some variation of Category:Seats of local government as it is used in Salt Lake City and County Building. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This needs to be sorted out on a more local basis. In Birmingham (England) the main seat of Local Government for the city is the Council House. Birmingham Town Hall is an auditorium owned by the city. A global rename will lead to miscategorisation
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_June_9&oldid=1138394178"