Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26 June 28 >

June 27[edit]

Category:SSTO[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/merge per modified proposal. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:SSTO to Category:Single stage to orbit
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There's a very, very large overlap and the names are trivially confused. (CATEGORY:SSTO is apparently only intended for spaceplanes, but I see no reason to distinguish them) -Rememberway (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked, yes that seems reasonable. -Rememberway (talk) 03:24, 1 July 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:Lists of states by dominant ethnic group[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of states by dominant ethnic group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category doesn't fully make sense. Few of the entries are actually lists, and they seem to be a random hodge-podge of former polities - not necessarily states - that conform to an ethnic group, but that aren't necessarily "dominant" in the geographical region. These entries could all be reclassified in pre-existing Category:Former countries or appropriate subcats. Uyvsdi (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Keep. These are all lists of states, or articles that are written around such lists (and city-states certainly count as states!). The ethnic groups are politically defining, not necessarily dominant on a census basis. It is important to categorize these articles together as they are all face the same sorts of nationalism-related POV issues.--Pharos (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the items in the category aren't lists and at least one of them is a disambiguation page. Have you considered renaming to clarify what you are trying to categorize? -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Hmm, I do agree the name could be improved. Perhaps to something like Category:Former countries by ethnicity, to parallel the other subcategories of Category:Former countries?--Pharos (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move. These areticles all should go in the appropriate former countries categories. The name does not at all convey what these lists are. These are lists of articles about former countries that had some level of ethnic cohesion. The name does not match at all what the category is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single appropriate former countries subcategory for this characteristic, though I have proposed a renaming that would fit this into the former countries schema, above.--Pharos (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category is missing many states, such as states of China, Japan, Korea, Siam, Thailand, Cambodia, VietnameVietnam, Iraq, Kurdistan, Former Kingdoms of India, Central Asian polities, the list goes on. It would be impressive to list every single former and current polity dominated by an ethnic group.Curb Chain (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be true that more articles of this type ought to be written, but this is not a valid reason for deletion.--Pharos (talk) 20:12, 1 July 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:Superman: The Animated Series characters[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Superman: The Animated Series characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Renominating since last nomination was speedy-kept for being nominated by a sockpuppet. This category contains only three items; even if two of them weren't redirects, that would still be WP:SMALLCAT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominators rationale. This just sounds like something that would be much better treated with a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 28 June 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:Hydropathists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hydropathists to Category:Hydrotherapists
Nominator's rationale: "Hydropathy" is the old-fashioned word for hydrotherapy, so the category name should be made consistent with the parent category hydrotherapy. Morn (talk) 18:20, 27 June 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.

Railway stations by country and company[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. The US Rail/Railway issue is best handled in a future CFD on thetop or whole of the category tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency within Category:Railway stations by company. The other existing categories are Category:Railway stations in Canada by company, Category:Railway stations in Switzerland by company and Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by train operating company. Additionally, Rail to Railway in the US one for consistency within Category:Railway stations in the United States, where railway is used throughout. SeveroTC 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Johnpacklambert. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They are railroad stations in the U.S. not railway.. It's a matter of regional English. Rail station is neutral. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference for Rail or Railway for the US, but there should be consistency within the tree and every other category within Category:Railway stations in the United States is at Railway. SeveroTC 10:04, 4 July 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:Fictional Alabama Crimson Tide football players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Alabama Crimson Tide football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No need for a single-entry category... — Scientizzle 14:03, 27 June 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:Godfrey Douglas Giles[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 10:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Godfrey Douglas Giles to Category:Works by Godfrey Douglas Giles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category contains files of works by Giles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (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 מישהו Od Mishehu 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Without "works by -" this category would mean articles related to him. Obviously this category does not contain such articles.Curb Chain (talk) 05:52, 28 June 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:New York City[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New York City to Category:New York, New York over redirect
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the names of the categories of other cities in the United States, such as Category:San Francisco, California (main article is at San Francisco), Category:Boston, Massachusetts (main article: Boston), Category:Miami, Florida (main article: Miami), Category:Honolulu, Hawaii (main article: Honolulu) and so on. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – New York, New York is ambiguous (as well as repetitive). Occuli (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New York City is overwhelming common usage.--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. New York City is the name of the article, and the category and article name should match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While Old Mishehu has a good point that in the case of these other categories we have broken the rule of agreement in category and article name, the issue is more complexed. San Francisco and Boston are many different things. Ambiguity works with articles better than categories. I would actually support renaming those two articles because I do not think either name is unambiguously associated with that city enough to justify it being the main article destination. On the other hand New York City is clear what it is about. New York, New York is less clear, because it could mean either the city or the county, which is smaller than the city. Category:New York City, New York might be worthwhile, but I am not sure there is another New York City anywhere to cause confusion. Still the reflex response "article and category should match" does not work here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose New York, New York is ambiguous. There's New York County, New York State; New York City in New York County (which is not all of New York City) in addition to NYC, NYS. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "New York, New York" to me is a song. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to rename, keep Cat:NYC - Per nom of the article (New York City) and because NY, NY is more ambiguous... By the way the proposal has a logic but, IMHO, the categories reguarding some of the most important US cities may be renamed without state's name; also to match article's title (ex: Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston etc.). As wroten above by John Pack Lambert, "article and category should match". --Dэя-Бøяg 14:40, 29 June 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:Media in which North Korea invades America[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Media in which North Korea invades America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A narrow intersection of a small category describing a trivial and exceedingly rare plot device with no potential for growth. Currently houses two articles. Quigley (talk) 06:05, 27 June 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.

Rename/Upmerge Hurling categories by Year[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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1998 in Hurling to Category:2009 in Hurling (to Category:1998 in hurling to Category:2009 in hurling).
Nominator's rationale: lower-case is usual in sports by year (as for hurling 2010 to 2012 eg Category:2010 in hurling); and they can then be linked to the navigation boxes which I have added to 2010-12.
Propose upmerging
Category:2008 Senior Club Hurling Championships into Category:2008 in hurling
Category:2009 Senior Club Hurling Championships into Category:2009 in hurling
Category:2010 Senior Club Hurling Championships into Category:2010 in hurling
Nominator's rationale: the few articles in these subcategories can be included in the main category for the year.
Propose upmerging
Category:National Hurling Leagues into Category:National Hurling League seasons
Nominator's rationale: "seasons" is used from 2006, but should be used for all Hugo999 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support all above changes Djln--Djln (talk) 11:04, 27 June 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:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Ohio[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Ohio to Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are only three armories on the Register in Ohio (all of which have articles, but two of which aren't in this category), and there's no reason to expect that there will very soon be more, so this category is simply too small. In a normal situation, I'd advise merging this to all of its parent categories, but the creator left almost all of the parent categories on the article. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_27&oldid=1141928056"