Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21

Disney roller coasters

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Roller coasters at Disney California Adventure to Category:Disney roller coasters

Propose merging Category:Roller coasters at Disneyland Park (Anaheim) to Category:Disney roller coasters

Propose merging Category:Roller coasters at Hong Kong Disneyland to Category:Disney roller coasters

Propose merging Category:Roller coasters at Tokyo Disneyland to Category:Disney roller coasters

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Very few articles grouped in these categories. I feel it is an example of overcategorisation. Similar categories to the parent like Category:Six Flags roller coasters have many more articles but are fine without subcategories. This is also an attempt to standardise the subcategories of Category:Roller coasters by operating company. Themeparkgc Talk 22:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – the nom is ignoring the other parent categories. Eg Category:Roller coasters at Disney California Adventure is a subcat of Category:Disney's California Adventure, Category:Roller coasters in California and Category:Buildings and structures in Anaheim, California as well as Category:Disney roller coasters. Hence (if not kept) it has to be upmerged to the 3 others as well. It seems to me that this is an efficient way of making sure that a roller coaster is in all the right categories: contrast with Green Lantern: First Flight (Six Flags Magic Mountain) which although evidently a structure in California is not categorised as being in California (or even the US) at all. So I am inclined towards keep unless the nom and rationale are improved. Occuli (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. Categorizations in multiple parents is a valid reason to keep a category even if it is lightly populated which these seem to meet and they are a also part of a series which is also a reason to keep. As pointed out above, accurate parent categories might be more accurately maintained if this level of categorization were extends to other parks. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The park in which a roller coaster is physically located seems like just about the most important piece of information you can know about it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2011 (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:MickWithoutGlasses's articles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm pretty sure past consensus is that we don't use categories to organize one particular editor's user space. A user can create a list within his or her user space to list his draft articles if organization is needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I share the nom's views on past consensus and that this particular consensus still holds (despite the splendid collection before us of 3 draft articles by MickWithoutGlasses). We could probably do without such as Category:Knokout discography too. Occuli (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that killed; it was being filed in articlespace, but everything in it was a sandbox page (which aren't supposed to have articlespace categories on them), so when I decategorized the sandbox pages the category was suddenly empty. For what it's worth, I actually suspect that the band in question is somewhere between non-notable and non-existent, but this obviously isn't the right forum for that discussion. Bearcat (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Alternatively we already have Special:PrefixIndex for this purpose. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Bearcat (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vast (and sound) past precedent against such individual user categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (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:Sports teams in Portland

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:Sports teams in Portland, Oregon. Several California cities have this classification, such as category:Sports teams in San Diego, California. Many big US cities don't, so we might wish to decide whether we want any of these. But for now, I'm just going to add the state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename Deletion is my first choice because I think the parent category Category:Sports in Portland, Oregon is just fine. But I can see why some may prefer the finer category, in which case its name must absolutely be renamed Category:Sports teams in Portland, Oregon. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2011 (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:Frank Farian artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or possibly rename to something like Category:Musicians associated with Frank Farian. The current title suggests that Farian "owned" the artists (in the way record labels "own" artists). As far as I understand, Farian never owned a record label and most entries in the category are simply artists that Farian worked with. That's just too loose an association. For instance, nobody in their right mind would view Stevie Wonder as a "Frank Farian artist" and Ralph Ruppert is not even an artist. Farian did form a number of well-know groups such as Milli Vanilli, Boney M. and Far Corporation so one option is to delete the current category and form a much narrower one such as Category:Musical groups formed by Frank Farian. Pichpich (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, which could have been expanded. a classic "by association" category. And it misuses "artists", which in category names should only be used by itself for visual arts artists. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above 'deletes'. We have Category:Albums produced by Frank Farian, part of Category:Albums by producer, but not (as yet) 'bands by creator'. Occuli (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (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:I-house architecture in the United States

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. Category:I-houses will need to be nominated separately, as it wasn't tagged.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:I-house architecture in the United States to Category:I-houses

Nominator's rationale: According to its article, the I-house is an American phenomenon. As a result, the I-houses category is always going to be virtually empty; to navigate to articles about individual I-houses, one will always have to go an extra step down to the I-houses in the USA category, which is redundant. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – but upmerge the unnecessary Category:I-houses to its 2 parents. Occuli (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge something - one too many layers, & the term is exclusively American. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – but upmerge the unnecessary Category:I-houses to its 2 parents per Occuli. This retains the most descriptive name, and one with matches the 'by state' subcats. Hmains (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (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:Redirects to template from non-template namespace

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: settle this fight elsewhere. The category is clearly not the subject of this argument. Figure out what you want the template(s) to do, and then when it's all sorted out or mediated, we'll consider what to do with the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I nominated this category for deletion before, see here. Then I withdrew the nomination, because the category was at that time populated by Template:R from other template. Now that that template has been deleted following this discussion, I renominate this category for deletion.

Main reason for deletion is that there is absolutely no worth in, or reason for, tracking redirects to templates from non-template namespace.
In addition, it is so rare an occurrence, that even when this category was added to templates like {{R to warning template}}, {{R to userbox}} or the deleted {{R from other template}}, no occurrences showed up.
The deletion discussion of the deleted Template:R from other template clearly shows that Category:Redirects from other templates, which was populated solely by that templates, was not deemed a useful category, and the more so this category. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
  1. This category was populated by {{R to template}} until the nominator of this deletion discussion put a speedy deletion tag on it. The nominator claimed that the template was a recreation of {{R from other template}}, which it was not, and the administrator who speedily deleted it has since agreed. The main purpose of {{R from other template}} was to populate Category:Redirects from other templates, which was used to track redirects within the template namespace. The consensus was that this was unnecessary so the category and template were deleted; however, the template's secondary function, populating Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace was never discussed. Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace tracks cross-namespace redirects to the template namespace. After {{R from other template}} was deleted, the category has no corresponding template so I created {{R to template}} to populate it. After it was incorrectly speedily deleted numerous times, the nominator also removed the functionality to populate this category from all other redirect templates for no apparent reason.
  2. Before {{R to template}} was deleted, the category was not empty. It had one member but the nominator never allowed enough time for any more members to be added because of his continual removal of the necessary functionality from redirect templates.
  3. The deletion discussion for {{R from other template}} was entirely unrelated to this category.
  4. The tracking of cross-namespace redirects is sometimes useful. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could be wrong, but it appears that the worth of these tracking cats are that they are all subcats of Category:Cross-namespace redirects (count=2,659), which is populated by {{R to other namespace}}, and there are many, many redirects in that category that could be reassigned to the subcats. This includes several redirects in the main namespace that begin with "T:" that redirect to template namespace. There are also many redirects from the main namespace that could be reassigned to {{R to category}}, {{R to portal}}, {{R to help}} and {{R to project}}. These Rcats respectively populate Category:Redirects to category space, Category:Redirects to portal space, Category:Redirects to help namespace and Category:Redirects to project space. And now for a confession. Until I found out the importance of using these templates and categories for CNRs, I added {{R to template}} to many template redirects to other templates, and this was clear misuse of the {{R to template}} Rcat. I think that I did that because the Rcats are actually a little vague, and it seems to me that Mclay1 is on the road to make these categories and their populating templates more clearly defined. If this tracking cat was created to take some of the weight from the parent cat, one finds in the parent cat that the usage is more common than one might think. If we delete this cat, then we might as well delete all of the other subcats and let the parent cat stand alone. OR perhaps we should keep this cat as it is named, and take a lesson that the other subcats be renamed in a similar manner. Then rename the populating Rcats, such as {{R to portal}} could become {{R to portal from non-portal namespace}}, and so forth. ({{R to portal}} could stick around as a shortcut.) In this vein, if it is found that this cat should be kept, then a populating Rcat named {{R to template from non-template namespace}} might be appropriate, and {{R to template}} could be reinstated as a shortcut to it. These are just thoughts and ideas for consideration in this discussion. Thank you for reading! — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 14:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{R to template}} used to be a redirect to {{R from other template}}, which was for template to template redirects, so you were not misusing it. {{R to portal}} etc. should not be renamed since they are not just for cross-namespace redirects because {{R to portal}} categorises into Category:Redirects to portals and Category:Redirects to portal space. {{R from other template}} (which I was about to propose to be renamed to {{R to template}} before it was deleted) was edited to also categorise into two categories before it was deleted. I think Category:Cross-namespace redirects is too large, which is why I'm trying to diffuse it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I wasn't really misusing {{R to template}}, but it probably was originally designed to populate a category that would hold all of the T:xx redirects that are now found in the parent category, Category:Cross-namespace redirects. Now, Mclay1, you need to take a good look at the {{R to portal}}, the {{R to project}} and the others. They all populate SUB-CATEGORIES of the parent category, Category:Cross-namespace redirects, and so, they are all ONLY supposed to be added to redirects that cross from the main ARTICLE NAMESPACE (or perhaps another namespace) into other namespaces. In that parent category are P:xx, H:xx, C:xx, and MOS:xx shortcut redirects that should eventually populate the sub-categories, along with T:xx shortcut redirects that need to be put in a template sub-category. These are all pseudo-namespaces and cross-namespace redirects, and so, the sub-categories that I mentioned before are their rightful "homes". So when you look more closely, the redirect-category templates {{R to category}}, {{R to portal}}, {{R to help}} and {{R to project}} are ONLY supposed to be added to cross-namespace redirects. — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm right. Template:R to portal categories into Category:Redirects to portals or Category:Redirects to portal space. Category:Redirects to portal space is a subcategory of Category:Cross-namespace redirects but Category:Redirects to portals is not. It's the same for all the others. Category:Cross-namespace redirects isn't only for redirects from the main namespace anyway, it's for any cross-namespace redirects. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:59, 28 February 2011 (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.

People from Georgia (country) by century

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:16th-century Georgian people to Category:16th-century people from Georgia (country)

Propose renaming Category:17th-century Georgian people to Category:17th-century people from Georgia (country)

Propose renaming Category:18th-century Georgian people to Category:18th-century people from Georgia (country)

Propose renaming Category:19th-century Georgian people to Category:19th-century people from Georgia (country)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (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.

Northern Irish foo

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Northern Irish xxx to xxx of Northern Ireland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per many previous cfds. Occuli (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:17, 22 February 2011 (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:Vandals

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:Vandals of property. There's no consensus for a deletion. There's consensus to do something, so a rename is in order. No one seems certain as to what, so I picked something. Feel free to renominate if you have a better idea. --Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm actually not sure whether this category should be deleted or not. After removing five entries (Domain of Moor, Francesco Morosini, Mohammed Omar, Pope Theophilus of Alexandria, Zvi Mazel), the remaining entries seem to represent a rather diverse group of people who have destroyed something. Cs32en Talk to me 05:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were they removed? // Liftarn (talk)

Yeah, why? Steinberger (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudge against creating a category to refer to the subject of the article Vandals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This has nothing to do with the tribe of vendals or its people, as the category makes clear, as do its parent category Category:Vandalism and main article Vandalism. This is a category for people who are notable for having destoyed/vandalized things--as their articles make clear. Hmains (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it's not at all satisfactory to have Category:Vandals when we have the article Vandals (and its actual category Category:Vandals (tribe)). Occuli (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this needs to be debated separately but I also feel that Category:Vandals (tribe) should be moved to Category:Vandals. Pichpich (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree with this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People who damaged artworks - Vandalism (usually accompanied in the British press by the word "mindless") is not really the appropriate term for these, but except for the Patriarch Cyril (why is he there) these people are only notable for this, and primary categories should always be preserved where possible. Zvi Mazel could then go back. in. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed St. Cyril, since there's nothing in the article about vandalism. The category was added in this edit, along with a quote from one of Edward Gibbon's "the Christians are barbarians" quotes. At some point since then, the quote was removed, but the category wasn't. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hey ho, educated vandalism. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Vandals (vandalism) or something, since this is definitely not about the Germanic tribe, and is extremely ambiguous. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely non-NPOV category. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for categorizing persons engaging in clear-cut vandalism. Steinberger (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (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:Georgian families

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 "of" form.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgian families to Category:Families of Georgia (country) or Category:Families from Georgia (country)

Propose renaming Category:Georgian noble families to Category:Noble families of Georgia (country) or Category:Noble families from Georgia (country)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (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 Widow albums

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Black Widow albums to Category:Black Widow (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Black Widow (band). Could potentially be confused with albums released by Black Widow Records (which was named after the band but has released albums not by the band named Black Widow). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ but I don't really care. I agree that there's a risk of confusion but I think it's minimal and insufficient to warrant disambiguation. The record label is very marginal so it's unlikely that it would be a search term in the category namespace. I would bet against the level-specific cat ever being created and if it were, it would be under the name Category:Black Widow Records albums. (per the convention at Category:Albums by record label) Pichpich (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Oppose but I don't really care". That's a new one for me! ... As long as we're talking about conventions ... the related convention names albums by artists as "ARTIST albums", with ARTIST being the WP article name, which matches the proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that last part true? I just searched WP for "(band)" and checked the first examples that come up in the search: +/- (band), Copyright (band), Franz Ferdinand (band), Poison (band), Sublime (band), Danzig (band), Traffic (band), CKY (band) and Toyah (band). With the exception of Copyright which has no albums category, the corresponding albums and songs categories don't carry the "(band)" disambiguation. On the other hand, searching "band albums" in the category namespace shows plenty of examples of "(band)" disambiguation. If it is the convention, I must say I don't understand its rationale: it goes against the "things should be easy to find" principle and I can't imagine a reader searching for Category:Poison (band) albums. Pichpich (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any such category brought to cfd in the last 2 or 3 years has been renamed in line with the band article. There are Category:Franz Ferdinand (band) and Category:Sublime (band) and their subcats should follow the same format. Occuli (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, conventions are important. Striking the oppose. (But for the record, it's still an ill-advised convention) Pichpich (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does help to reduce confusion and (if it were universally implemented) it would make it more predictable where one will find an albums category for a particular band. (Of course, it's not universally implemented, which makes it very difficult to know where the album category will be when a band name is somewhat or a lot ambiguous.)Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the article Black Widow (band). There are dozens of cfds establishing this convention. Occuli (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2011 (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:Oceaneering rides

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oceaneering rides to Category:Oceaneering International rides

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The format for Category:Amusement rides by manufacturer is "NAME-OF-MANUFACTURER rides", where "NAME-OF-MANUFACTURER" is the same as the WP article about the manufacturer. In this case, the manufacturer name is Oceaneering International. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sorry I created this category. I just looked at an infobox and it was linking to Oceaneering and I created the category accordingly. Themeparkgc Talk 23:56, 21 February 2011 (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:HUSS rides

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HUSS rides to Category:HUSS Park Attractions rides

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The format for Category:Amusement rides by manufacturer is "NAME-OF-MANUFACTURER rides", where "NAME-OF-MANUFACTURER" is the same as the WP article about the manufacturer. In this case, the manufacturer name is HUSS Park Attractions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sorry I created this category. I just looked at an infobox and it was linking to HUSS and I created the category accordingly. Themeparkgc Talk 23:56, 21 February 2011 (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:Chinese nationalists

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 capitalize Nationalist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no good objective way to define this category, and the member articles in this category and its subcategories (which I'm also nominating for deletion, below), show that — I'd have to say that all of the figures listed are arguably nationalist and arguably not nationalist. Further, there are many, many arguably nationalist figures that are not currently in the category which have the same issue: arguably nationalist and arguably nonnationalist, because there is no good objective standard. Without the good objective standards, any inclusion or noninclusion is going to be POV. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion are its subcategories:

Chinese Nationalists redirects to Kuomintang, and there already is Category:Kuomintang. Unless there is a good rational for distinguishing Chinese Nationalists and Kuomintang (which would need to result in eliminating the redirect), I would support deletion. Cs32en Talk to me 06:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is confused. The Kuomintang was the party of the 'Chinese Nationalists', which was the name for the people fighting for the Republic of China (as the 'Chinese Nationalist government') and then specifically for those fighting against the Chinese Communists and against the Japanese Empire. One cannot simply delete history; one could argue for better names or for merges. This takes analysis. Hmains (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have as much quibbles if the category were "Chinese Nationalists" (note capitalization), but "nationalists" in the small letters do not denote KMT or the Nationalist Government (of all of its iterations in Guangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, and Chongqing). If it were, in fact, intended to denote KMT only, then it duplicates Category:Members of the Kuomintang (which is a lot clearer as to what it includes). Right now, even assuming that it was intended to speak of the Nationalist government(s), it is going to be underpopulated due to its unclear nature. I still believe that deletion is the best solution, but even if not deleted, it should be renamed and refocused. --Nlu (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Chines Nationalist [foo] ; I agree with the argument that with the capital it represents a specific government, rther than those Chinese who could be called nationalists in a more general sense, which is much broader. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename per DDG as these are people associated with the Chinese Nationalist government of China. Hmains (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2011 (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:Defunct architecture firms based in the United States

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Defunct architecture firms based in the United States to Category:Defunct architecture firms of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match both parent categories: Category:Defunct companies of the United States by industry and Category:Architecture firms of the United States. Pichpich (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom the 'based in' phrase is for US state level categories, not US national categories. Hmains (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree, I believe I created this category as a national extension of one based in New York; I the name model had been Architecture firms based in new york, and I had merely added defunct in front. Given a choice, I prefer Category:Defunct architecture firms of the United States instead of the more complicated based in phrase. ---James R (talk)

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.