Category:Great Basin valleys and basins of Nevada[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We generally don't group two different things into one category. In the end, most of the content is up for deletion, so this could well end up being thinly populated. It is also a non defining triple intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "The Elders" is highly ambiguous, as this is a category and not an article name. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is the article that should be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Copperheads (politics). Copperhead has several meanings and is ambiguous; most people would probably first think of the snake, not the political faction. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think of the snake first. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Category is not neutral and relies on a subjective assessment of the importance of particular cases. It's better to just group these in the neutral parent category and leave discussion of what cases are leading cases to the relevant articles, where such claims can be cited. The more general "Landmark cases" was deleted in the past. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category is distinct from Category:United States antitrust case law in the same way that Category:Olympic_gold_medalists and Category:Olympic_athletes are distinct from one another. Readers will be well-served by a category that is more selective than all antitrust cases satisfying Wikipedia's notability threshold, supplying a whistle-stop tour of the high points (for better and worse). The objection that the category isn't "neutral and relies on a subjective assessment" is also ill-taken, I feel. It takes no particular subtlety to say that Standard Oil and Alcoa were landmarks in the development of antitrust caselaw; nor is it controversial to suggest that Diversified Brokerage Services v. Great Des Moines Bd. of Realtors, 521 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1975), doesn't scale those dizzy heights. So it's hard to see how saying so transgresses WP:NPOV. Since there are easy cases for inclusion or exclusion, the category itself seems unobjectionable and objections to the inclusion vel non of a given case can be handled on a case-by-case basis.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you succinctly set out the criteria for inclusion, then? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title is self-explanatory: Cases that articulate a novel test or departure from previous caselaw, or in some other way distinguish themselves. GTE Sylvania and Leegin would be obvious inclusions because they overruled previous cases and articulated an alternative governing test in a discreet area of antitrust doctrine. They changed the legal landscape, and claiming that they aren't milestones is obtuse to the point of being pointy. If your objection is that the criteria rely to some extent on judgment, that's true, but my answer is "so what?" You can object to the inclusion of particular cases on a case-by-case basis, but it's obvious and indisputable that some cases (again, my example is Standard Oil) obviously fit into this category, and to my mind, that says that the category is fine generally, and individual inclusions can be contested should it become necessary.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you can't provide a category definition that doesn't rely on a significant amount of judgment and/or skill in determining if an article satisfies the criteria, I'm still inclined to think that categorization on this standard is inappropriate. Categories aren't used when inclusion is a judgment call or requires a particular set of skills to make the decision of whether or not to include them. When there could be debate on the inclusion or exclusion of an article from a category using the "case-by-case" process, it's a sign that categorization is inappropriate. This is a basic principle of overcategorization and has nothing to do with being "pointy". I am a lawyer and while I understand your intent and what is meant, I disagree that this is a neutral or obvious determination. This is essentially just a subcategory type of the "landmark cases" category that was deleted a few years ago. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. That some antitrust cases are more important than others is something to be explained in article text with sources. What constitutes a "landmark" (and conversely, what doesn't) is not something that is objective or clear enough to be addressed by this kind of categorization. So all this will accomplish is arbitrarily splitting the antitrust case law category, with the cases sliding one by one into the "landmark" category as one reader after another decides "no, this case is really important too." But you can urge recreation and dust off the completely inapt gold medal/athlete comparison as soon as an official legal committee starts handing out "landmark" appellations for antitrust opinions. postdlf (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - not only is it subjective and abnormal in the extreme (we don't have any other "legal landmarks" cats), it's also US-centric. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 November 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:Articles that include images for deletion as of June 2011[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: already deleted. postdlf (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Weird, a montly cleanup category for a month that is about half a year away. Not needed until that month, only members that could be in this category would be erroneous ones. Acather96 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I created it, it was populated, but as with any other maintenance cat, just G6 it. ΔT The only constant 21:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. See the main article, Triple deity. Most of these are are not considered triune by anyone. They are threefold, tripled, triplicate, tripartite, triune, or triadic deities. I would also be open to "Category:Triple deities" but this seem more clear to me. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:τᴀʟĸ 20:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Triple deities (correct spelling). The concept of a triune deity is unique to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. STrictly that should not be in the renamed category, but I can live with that. The main article is Triple deity. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match category to parent article. The Portland Winterhawks modified their nickname in 2009. Resolute 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we use alumni and not players?--TM 03:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because junior graduates are considered alumni of their organizations. Resolute 01:58, 17 November 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:The American College (Bryn Mawr, PA)[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 as empty. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Can be recreated if alumni and faculty subcats are made or if there are more articles to add to this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this information is useful and lost if deleted. Lets expand on the content; for example, there are two pages listed on the article as alumni, so an alumni tag can be useful. If they really do have 30,000 enrolled students, I think a category like this is helpful.--TM 16:26, 15 November 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:Populated places in the Ilia Prefecture[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Elis is both the traditional and usual English form, and the name of the parent category about the prefecture itself. Constantine ✍ 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article and cat.--Lenticel(talk) 01:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Steam5 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 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:Great Basin hydrologic basins in California[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; deletion supported by category's creator/sole editor. postdlf (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Based on the introduction, inclusion requires a quadruple intersection of being in California in the Great Basin being hydrologic and an endorheic basin. Again this entire area is better served by creating some list articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:08, 15 November 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:Oregon hydrologic regions in the Great Basin[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry category with unlikely growth potential. Also a triple intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 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, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO, a defining trait of a team's season is the titles it wins. A conference title may be less important than a national title, but both can be categorized. Resolute 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To agree with the main article. Ucucha 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - If you look in Category:Diprotodonts and Category:Marsupials (this category's parentage), all of the categories are pleural, while the main articles are singular. The categories contain members of the group name. Using more common terms, all types of marsupials are located in Category:Marsupials, yet the main article is the singular Marsupial. Almost all of the marsupial subcategories are pleural and follow this same scheme. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Macropodidae is already plural. This proposed move is from an English plural form to the equivalent Latin plural form. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - where taxonomic categories are used, the correct Latin form should be used. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Though there are obviously exceptions (including some successful renames listed on this page). I look over the subcats (and subcats of subcats of subcats) of Category:Mammals, and the english plural seems to be predominant in usage. This really should be discussed among those knowledgable about such things, like at a Wikiproject. I would guess that there is an WP:MoS related to this somewhere... - jc37 22:02, 9 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, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, we have the rule that categories must be named in accordance with their parent article. If the English plural is predominant, that may be because the parent title use the anglicized forms. In this case, however, "macropod" is ambiguous, and we should use the more precise form. There are many other mammals categories using this form: see Category:Afrosoricida, Category:Australosphenida, and several subcategories of Category:Bats. Ucucha 12:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on gut reaction. Macropod is a common word. Macropodidae sounds supercillious. Macropod, currently a disambiguation page, is ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is ambiguous, why do you want to keep it? Ucucha 15:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity of the disambiguation page would ideally be fixed. I'd do it if I knew the subject.
I didn't think we were discussing keeping/deleting. I thought we were discussing the preservation of latin plural forms in English words of latin origin ("macropod"). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the ambiguity could be "fixed"; the term itself is ambiguous. I used "keep" in opposition to "rename". Ucucha 17:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename both. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename both, all of the Brockville related categories are not including the province name. The city's name, Buildings and structures, Education, and Media categories have only include the city's name Brockville, but not include the province name. The last two Brockville categories has to be renamed to match the main article Brockville and other Brockville related categories. Steam5 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per WP:CANSTYLE, the category names should match the name of the related article, which in this case is Brockville. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete all. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However the well-established category, Category:Jewish comedians, will remain and be unaffected by such deletion. Unlike the subcategories listed, there is clearly a link between the two aspects of the subcategory, resulting in Jewish humour. Davshul (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete all. — ξxplicit 08:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Each of these eponymous categories for a political party is unnecessary because all they contain is the main article of the same name and a subcategory for politicians of the party. If the main article is included in Category:Political parties in New Zealand, nothing is lost by not having the eponymous categories. Each is a relatively small party and three of the four are defunct, so the categories are unlikely to be needed in the future. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 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.
