Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2[edit]

Category:NFL defensive coordinators[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NFL defensive coordinators to Category:National Football League defensive coordinators
Nominator's rationale: Spelling out NFL. Pats1 00:02, 3 July 2007 (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:NFL offensive coordinators[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NFL offensive coordinators to Category:National Football League offensive coordinators
Nominator's rationale: Spelling out NFL. Pats1 00:02, 3 July 2007 (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:Films by shooting location[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. The well-reasoned arguments for deletion trump the proof by assertion argument to keep. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films by shooting location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is non-notable overcategorization. Films are shot everywhere; one film can be shot in as many as 10 different places. This just won't work and simply isn't important enough for categorization. Bulldog123 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LeSnail 23:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all This quite often is a defining characteristic of a film, and I don't see many films being in many such categories. Haddiscoe 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Haddiscoe - defining characteristic. Lugnuts 07:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify all - A lot of different categories could be added to films to describe all aspects of their production. At some point, some limits need to be placed on the categories, or else the categories within each article will be too long to read easily or use for navigation. These categories are not really necessary, as most films are not known specifically for their shooting locations (although they may be better known for theiur settings, which are not necessarily the same thing). Moreover, films are often shot in multiple locations, so the categories could become cluttersome very quickly. However, I suggest listifying these, as the information could be of interest to some people studying the topic. Dr. Submillimeter 07:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all/no objection to listifying per nom. This is not defining for a film; many films are filmed all over the place (so a quick scene - maybe even a quick pan of the New York skyline showing the WTC so we are mentally propelled to a pre-2001 timeframe but where all the action takes place indoors gets a Category:Films shot in New York when what's defining is that the film is set' in New York) if a scene or two is shot on some Hollywood backlot made to look like somewhere else, do we add them to Category:Films shot in Los Angeles?) and often where they are shot differs from where the setting is, disguising Montreal for Paris, Budapest or Prague for London or Moscow is not uncommon to save money. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 3 July 2007 (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.

Various blue-eyed soul singers[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, except for the parent. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blue-eyed soul singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American blue-eyed soul singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British blue-eyed soul singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Northern Irish blue-eyed soul singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:English blue-eyed soul singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian blue-eyed soul singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German blue-eyed soul singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete it may be interesting but ultimately the three way intersection of being Caucasian, American (or other Fooian), and a "soul-singer". The American category, e.g., defines its requirements as "... the artist is not required to have blue eyes, only be a white singer who has made music that credibly fits in the traditionally black world of R&B, hip-hop, and/or soul." Given that genres of music are fluid and ill-defined, and that many artists have a single song that would fit into those limits, really is not defining for the artist, as a quick perusal of who's there shows: Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, Hall & Oates, and Todd Rundgren, are not the sort of people would think of in these terms. There are other cats of similar import that I'll nominate next, so not singling out the Americans. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Carlossuarez46 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Agree completely. This doesn't work and is too subjective. Bulldog123 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRename all per nom Johnbod 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Do you mean delete? LeSnail 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, sorry Johnbod 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Category:Blue-eyed soul singers Carlossuarez is right that the triple intersections are a little much, but the main category should probably stay as a apparently quite notable two-way intersection--Blue-eyed soul is a fairly decent article and could probably be made into one of very high quality. LeSnail 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:OC#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. Doczilla 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per above. --Yamla 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep parent cat, delete sub-cats per LeSnail. Over-intersection of race, nationality and genre for sub-categories, but the existence of the lead article (and the inclusion of Blue-eyed soul in {{soulmusic}}) would suggest that there is a good reason for keeping this as a category to group together appropriate singers. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep parent cat, delete sub-cats per LeSnail. Johnbod 00:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep parent, delete all subs Lmao! What kind of term is that? I never heard of such a thing. Probably something Quincy Jones came up with in his pajamas. (Mind meal 15:38, 4 July 2007 (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:Comic Book Events[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic Book Events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Comic book events, or perhaps Category:Comic book limited series, as it seems to feature Limited series. -- Prove It (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "Category:Comic book events" would be preferable of the two the nom suggested since most of the articles cover a story line that was not limited to a single series. I'd be tempted to fine tune to "Category:Comic book sales events" or "Category:Comic book event story arcs". - J Greb 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete altogether. "Events" is vague and subject to interpretation. "Limited series" is unnecessary and inconsistent with other categories. Doczilla 04:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's why I offered one of the other two suggestions. It isn't that hard to define, NPOV, material produced as a sales stunt. By the same token it is also fairly wasy to point out what is a line-wide story arc. - J Greb 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could live with limited series because it's objectively defined in that the companies themselves specify that the series is limited before the first issue comes out, but "story arc" is tremendously broad, sometimes clearcut but often subject to interpretation. Doczilla 10:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • re: story arc: Yes and no. In most cases, with material published prior to the TPB market taking off, it is hard to point to where a story starts and ends. After it becomes easier since the publisher tends to identify the arcs and the writers to write towards a collected edition. If this cat is designed to gather the line-wide, company-hyped, marketing-driven story arcs, it becomes less subjective. - J Greb 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to point some thing out here... the editor that created the cat under discussion here has created the "Comic book limited series" cat and, at this point, move most of the articles to it. - J Greb 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no objective definition as to what constitutes an "event." If it's a limited series it can go in that category and if it's for a storyline it can go in Category:Comic book storylines. Otto4711 21:27, 5 July 2007 (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:Alpha Flight[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alpha Flight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete As per previous consensus, fictional charaters are not to be categorized by eith fictional teams they are associated with or by the publications in which they appear. I believe this is also a recreation, but the editor that created this pone may be unaware of the previous CfD. J Greb 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus and precedent against superteam categorization. Otto4711 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 04:46, 3 July 2007 (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:"Brazilian Jazz" musicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Brazilian jazz (genre) foo --Kbdank71 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:"Brazilian Jazz" musicians to Category:"Brazilian jazz" musicians
Nominator's rationale: The genre of jazz is written with a little j. See Brazilian jazz. Would nominate for speedy, except that the category would still be named somewhat unconventionally, and so maybe the rename isn't entirely beyond objection. LeSnail 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep I see why you would bring this up, but I did capitalize it for a reason, ie. to differentiate itself further from Category:Brazilian jazz musicians which indicates nationality. I wanted to make it clear it was different from the other category was all. (Mind meal 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Rename per nom. The capital J is a breach of Wikipedia's style guidelines, and does not perform any useful function. From my way of looking at it, the only extra point it appears to make is the the creator was not aware of those style guidelines. Æthelwold 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I was quite aware of those guidelines, but considered that since the category already went beyond convention it would harm nothing. My only rationale was to make it as clear as possible that it is not associated with the nationality category. (Mind meal 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The inverted commas do a sufficient job of distinguishing between "Brazilian jazz" musicians and musicians who play jazz who come from Brazil. That said, if anyone else has better ideas... Bencherlite 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) updated in the light of a further suggestion below[reply]

Rename all On second thought, I have no real objection to any of this. I just wanted folks to know the rationale; regardless, there will now be a place for both. (Mind meal 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Rename all This is a simple matter of applying the guidelines correctly. Haddiscoe 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would like to see the quotes go. I also consider it someone confusing to have both Category:"Brazilian jazz" musicians and Category:Brazilian jazz musicians. The names don't identify what the category contains. I understand the problem, but I believe there is a better solution. Vegaswikian 06:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Support. Vegaswikian 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. However Category:Brazilian jazz (genre) musicians would perhaps be clearer. Wimstead 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be happy with that - the inverted commas look far worse than (genre) in the category name. I've amended my suggestions accordingly and will let Mind meal, Haddiscoe and Vegaswikian know about Wimstead's suggestion so they get a chance to comment again if they wish. Bencherlite 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Brazilian jazz (genre) Perfect idea. (Mind meal 14:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Rename all to Brazilian jazz (genre) Piccadilly 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to use "Brazilian jazz (genre)", an excellent suggestion for what had been looking like an intractable and perplexing problem. Xtifr tälk 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Brazilian jazz (genre) per Wimstead. Johnbod 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:AFV equipment[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:AFV equipment to Category:Armoured fighting vehicle equipment
Nominator's rationale: Again, the meaning of AFV is not clear. LeSnail 18:45, 2 July 2007 (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:Improvised AFVs[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Improvised AFVs to Category:Improvised armoured fighting vehicles
Nominator's rationale: I, for one, would never have been able to guess what an "AFV" is. Horribly unclear. LeSnail 18:39, 2 July 2007 (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:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Los Angeles County[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. Perhaps it's wortwhile to take a closer look at the tree as a whole. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Los Angeles County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category not necessary. EagleFan 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly logical division of Roman Catholic schools by geography and by level of education. Moreover, it looks like Los Angeles contains a lot of these schools. Maybe the nominator did not fully explain the rationale for deletion, but until then, the category should stay. Dr. Submillimeter 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that Los Angeles county has about the same population as Belgium, this is a reasonable category. Haddiscoe 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous two editors, and the discussion here (nomination by EagleFan does notr seem like it was made in good faith). --evrik (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous comment. This category was only created because i suggested that the Philadelphia category was not necessary. Creating another category just to justify keeping a category that was nominated for deletion...that is "good faith"? I was trying to stop an explosion of unnecessary sub-categories in this tree. EagleFan 14:27, 9 July 2007 (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.

Historical airports in Canada[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Historical airports in Canada
Category:Historical airports in Alberta
Category:Historical airports in British Columbia
Category:Historical airports in New Brunswick
Category:Historical airports in Newfoundland and Labrador
Category:Historical airports in the Northwest Territories
Category:Historical airports in Nova Scotia
Category:Historical airports in Nunavut
Category:Historical airports in Ontario
Category:Historical airports in Prince Edward Island
Category:Historical airports in Quebec
Category:Historical airports in Saskatchewan
Category:Historical airports in the Yukon
Category:Historical airports in Kivalliq Region
  • Rename all to Category:Defunct airports in place and Merge the Kivalliq Region category into the Nunavut category- The term "historical" has multiple meanings. It could be used to refer to locations that are a set age (50, 100, or 200 years old) or to places that have been placed in historic registers. In these cases, the term refers to airports that are no longer in use. The term should be changed to "defunct", which is much less ambiguous. Also, as the Kivalliq Region category contains only one article, as the Nunavut category contains only the Kivalliq Region category, as no other province or territory is divided into subregions for categorizing defunct airports, the Kivalliq Region category should be merged into the Nunavut category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all and merge per nom. Defunct is much clearer and more verifiable. There is no reason to divide the Nunavut airports by region. LeSnail 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Defunct implies that the airport isn't running any longer ... which is the case. Historic just means that something historic happened there. Both could be true at once, but all of these are closed. -- Prove It (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but using, Category:Unregistered and abandoned aerodromes in place. NAV CANADA has a section in the Canada Flight Supplement that lists abandoned aerodromes. An aerodrome is listed there, and on the VFR charts, until such time as they are no longer recognizable from the air as an aid to navigation. An example of this time is Cowpar Airport that is in the abandoned aerodromes section and would be listed as such on the VFR charts. However, in the same section it discusses aerodromes that still in operation and are recognizable from the air. These aerodromes, such as Tatamagouche Airport, due to the fact they are still in use, but not registered, are not listed in the abandoned section but do appear on the VFR charts as "status unknown". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Maybe a separate category tree should be created for unregistered airports. I would still recommend using "defunct" for the abandoned and unusable airports. Grouping the two together seems like it would cause confusion and based on the description above, it does not sound like the two are necessarily listed together outside of Wikipedia, either (but I could be wrong). Also, is it necessary to use "aerodrome" instead of "airport"? Dr. Submillimeter 07:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry, I was thinking of the fact that aerodrome in Canada is a designation that is different from airport. Of course the category should be "airports" to match with the rest of the categories on Wikipeda, starting a new "aerodrome" category wouldn't be a good idea. Also for now move all the current historical aerodromes into the new category. Later when I get back to work I can go through the charts and put the others into a seperate category. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:28, 3 July 2007 (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:Historical airports in Bermuda[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historical airports in Bermuda to Category:Former military airports in Bermuda Category:Defunct military airports in Bermuda
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" has many meanings. It could refer to places that are a set age (50, 100, or 200 years old) or places that are in a historic register. In this case, it refers to a series of military airports that are no longer used as military airports (although one is now used for commercial and private aviation). The category should be renamed using "former", which is much less ambiguous. Also, the category should be renamed to indicate that these are former military bases, as one of the locations is still in use as an airport. Alternately, the active airports can be filtered out of the category, and the category can be renamed as "former airports in Bermuda". (Also note that I removed Royal Air Force, Bermuda, 1939-1945 from this category before nominating it for renaming, as it was not an article about an airport.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A potential parent category is Category:Defunct airports, so it may be appropriate to rename this using "defunct" instead of "former". I have amended my nomination accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 14:39, 2 July 2007 (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:Armored fighting vehicles[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Armored fighting vehicles to Category:Armoured fighting vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Quite simply, the main article is Armoured fighting vehicle. With the UK English spelling, categories should follow the same example. I had the same problem with the categories for armour. However, there are far too many AFV categories for me to list. I hope that wikipedians will agree to all "armoured vehicles", etc categories to be renamed accordingly to the British English and that an admin can update all the categories without me having to tag and list all of them. I have, however, tagged all the sub-categories here, here and here. Another example is here, but as I said I can't tag everything - there are so many sub-categories. John Smith's 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all for consistency with the main article and create category redirects. LeSnail 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename all As per WP usage, categories and articles on the U.S. (and other countries using US English) should remain or be named to use US English. In this case, 'armored'. Consistency is not a goal here, as found by various rejections at this site that would result in a consistency of British English and a rejection of US English. Hmains 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- This is not a category or article on the US or another country using US English. Nor is the main article written in US English. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. LeSnail 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article, as per usual practice that they should concur. Piccadilly 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to correspond with the main article. As for Hmains' comment, consistency in spelling is not required project-wide, but is encouraged within articles and within category structures. Besides, I see no reason to reject an opportunity to uncontroversially introduce some consistency. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:32, 7 July 2007 (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:Swiss Football League 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: merge. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Swiss Football League players to Category:Swiss Super League players
Nominator's rationale: Merge, For the player played for the top division of Swiss football, one cat is enough. Matthew_hk tc 13:29, 2 July 2007 (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:Historical European Commissioners[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Historical European Commissioners to Category:European Commissioners
Nominator's rationale: Merge - People are generally not sorted according to status ("current", "former", "retired", "active", etc.). These two categories should therefore be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 13:25, 2 July 2007 (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:Historical Christian denominations[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historical Christian denominations to Category:Defunct Christian denominations
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" could have many meanings. In this case, the term is used to refer to denominations of Christianity that no longer exist, although it could just as easily be used to refer to denomination that are very old (such as Eastern Orthodoxy). I propose renaming this category using "defunct", which more clearly indicates that the denominations no longer exist. Dr. Submillimeter 13:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Former Christian denominations A great many of these have ceeased to exist independently by amalgamation or renaming, so defunct is an even more unsuitable word than usual. For example, the Lutheran Church in America brought nearly 3 million members into a new merged church in 1988; I don't think they should be described as "defunct". Johnbod 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I chose "defunct" over "former" as "defunct" seemed better suited to describing organizations in general. However, either term would be preferable to "historical". If "former" causes less offense, then maybe that term should be used. Dr. Submillimeter 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Another problem with both "Historical" and "Former" is that it sounds these are denominations of historical/former Christians rather than historical/former denominations. "Defunct" seems (to my ear at least) to avoid this ambiguity, as I don't think that "defunct Christians" would reasonably be grouped into separate denominations from still-living Christians. As for Johnbod's comments, I have no idea why the activities of the former members of a defunct organization would make it so that the defunct organization should not be described as defunct. I'm not a Lutheran, but if my church merged with another, I would have no problem referring to it as defunct. I certainly see no logical or aesthetic reason to prefer "former". Xtifr tälk 00:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct means "dead" "extinct", "devoid of life" , just like the dead parrot. It is hardly an accurate way to describe an organisation that merged with others and renamed itself - as probably a majority of this category have. This is separate from my view that it is an inaccurate vulgarism to describe anything other than a formerly-living creature by this term. Former avoids these problems. I must say I lack the imagination to have conceived of ex-Christians forming denominations of their own. As usual I'm afraid I can't understand the riddle in the middle referring to my comments: "I have no idea why the activities of the former members of a defunct organization would make it so that the defunct organization should not be described as defunct." Translation please. Johnbod 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Defunct" also means "no longer in effect or use; no longer operating" or, simply, "Having ceased to exist or live". I would say that these denominations are no longer operating and have ceased to exist. I have no idea why you think that it is a "vulgarism" to use the term to refer to non-creatures, since the word is related to "function", and comes from a latin root meaning "to perform". No dictionary I can find seems to support your stance. Xtifr tälk 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod ("Former", not "Defunct"). Carlossuarez46 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If people prefer using "former" over "defunct", then perhaps Category:Former denominations of Christianity would be a better name, as it more clearly indicates that the denomination are former entities (as opposed to the denominations being composed of former Christians). Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be acceptable to me as well. Xtifr tälk 01:29, 5 July 2007 (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:Former subdivisions of countries[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was reverse merge into Category:Former subdivisions of countries, to minimise ambiguity. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former subdivisions of countries to Category:Former country subdivisions
Nominator's rationale: Merge - The two categories are clearly redundant. They should be merged together using the shorter name. Dr. Submillimeter 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Retired National Lacrosse League 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: merge. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Retired National Lacrosse League players to Category:National Lacrosse League players
Nominator's rationale: Merge - People are generally not sorted according to their career and their status ("former", "retired", "dead", etc.). These two categories therefore should be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 13:02, 2 July 2007 (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:Port cities in the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to 'cities and towns'. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Port cities in the United Kingdom to Category:Port towns in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: The word "city" in this context has a definite meaning which most of the settlements listed fail to meet. Therefore, we should not use the word in the category name. Marnanel 11:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yes, there were a bunch more in there before this morning, and User:Frelke went through and removed them (Special:Contributions/Frelke) on the grounds that Dover, etc., are not cities so didn't belong. I think that if what we're actually wanting is a category of cities in the British sense that happen to be ports, it would fail CfD for being useless just as much as, say, a list of scientists who happen to be gay. Marnanel 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a child of Category:Port cities in Europe and Category:Port cities, so is part of a much wider structure. (Not that it means it can't all be deleted, of course...) Bencherlite 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*nods* I realise that, but in this particular subcategory we run the risk of not being able to include such obvious towns as Dover because legally they aren't cities. It's not really reasonable to have the British understanding of "city" used for a global category like Category:Port cities, but I similarly don't think it's reasonable to use the global understanding of the word for the British subcategory, or we'll have incidents like Frelke's business this morning all the time. Marnanel 11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, including the brothels then? Johnbod 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom per Alex (but without the extraneous "s"). That covers all bases, erm, ports, and keeps things in the standard "cities and towns" format. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This involves more than just the UK; it involves all countries under the high categories of Category:Port cities and Category:Ports and harbours. Seeing that the purpose of 'Ports and harbours' was not to include the cities/towns themselves but rather to just include physical harbors and port infrastructure, I moved the cities/towns to the Port cities categories. This triggered a set of reversions by several people who were offended to think that places named towns should be in a category named 'city'. Further questions then arose as to whether WP should even bother categorizing all port towns as that might include every sea-side place with a jetty. Hmains 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the categories currently reflect this supposed difference at all. Look at Category:Ports and harbours of Scotland - it is stuffed full of normal articles on towns & cities, & has as subcats the full categories for the major cities, that are full of "Education in Glasgow" & similar stuff. Not a derrick in sight. What's going on here? There is more "city" stuff here than in the Port cities side. Johnbod 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I realized various articles were in the 'wrong place' according to the existing category definitions; that is why I was moving them. And I was not finished, so saying they are still wrong is not interesting. I would keep moving them to the 'right' place except for one editor who is reverting every change here. Let's work on the what we need to have for WP and go from there. Hmains 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to get shirty. Where does the discussion on this take place? At the moment it would be quicker to swop the category names. Johnbod 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a much bigger question that needs answering here. Can I propose that we don't rename the UK category without renaming its parents and its siblings. Dover is not a city. It is a town. It is alos a port. In my book you cannot separate its port from its town. The reason the town exists is because of port. Most ports do not warrant a separate article on the facility itself. Do we have a category of Category:Airport cities? So why have a category Category:Port cities and a Category:Coastal cities. I pretty much guarantee that 95%++ of the coastal cities will have a port facility of some kind. And I include towns in that. We need to sort out the parent categories first. Its a big job and it has barely started yet. Pleeez, oppose this proposal. With categories, we need to work top-down, whilst maintaining local and regional naming sensitivities. Frelke 05:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above - Personally I'd see what happens with the rename here, and if it gets changed for the UK ones, then mass nominate the rest based on the outcome of this. Lugnuts 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on the above - What makes you think that a "British" solution would work globally? The point is that Category:Port cities and towns in xxxxx might be an unmanageable category. It might work in the U.K., but that doesn't necessarily make it suitable for worldwide distribution. The problem with the current schema is that has a very narrow focus. There may be better ways of achieving the desired end. And they won't necessarily be found by finding a UK-focussed solution. Frelke 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom as most UK ports are only towns. On the broader issue, I have explained my opposition to merging the two systems in the other discussion. Wimstead 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom and move the dozens of towns and cities in the "Ports and harbours category" here. NB eg Category:Liverpool should NOT be kept as a sub-cat, just include the article. NB the other discussion - July 3. Other countries show this system of dual categories can make sense. It seems just to be the British Isles which are in such a mess. Johnbod 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom per Alex & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom. I created this category, based on its parent at the time: Category:Port cities. To be more inclusive and useful to WP, however, this and all its same-name-pattern categories should be renamed to 'cities and towns'. Hmains 16:44, 7 July 2007 (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 TV series by city setting[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of TV series by city setting to Category:Lists of television series by setting
Nominator's rationale: The abbreviation should be expanded. Also if "city" is removed, other articles listing television series by setting in states/regions can also be added to the category. musicpvm 06:08, 2 July 2007 (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:DV8 members[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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DV8 members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per consensus against categorizing superheroes by team affiliation. Otto4711 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per consensus not to cat characters by team membership. - J Greb 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 10:30, 2 July 2007 (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:Sandman 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. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sandman characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - pretty sure we decided against categorizing characters by their associations with other characters. Otto4711 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per consensus not to cat characters by "cast of series". - J Greb 02:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There are too many comic books with too many character for categorization by title to be practical. Doczilla 06:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categories associating one character with many other characters are not useful, as the connections are sometimes weak and as the characters will associate with other characters as well. (How many characters is Sabretooth (comics) associated with?) Dr. Submillimeter 08:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I totally understand that with most comics, it is impractical to have categories like this for more mainstream comics. Spiderman would have dozens and dozens of categories if we included every comic he had ever appeared in. However, I believe Sandman is different because it is more of an independent comic. Look at Category:Transmetropolitan or Category:Preacher (comics), the few articles we have on characters from these series are categorized in the parent comic cat. We also have Category:V for Vendetta characters. My point is that the vast majority of the articles in the Sandman characters cat are original characters created for the series and they have no to very little 'guest' appearances in other comics. I believe the cat could be cleaned up and limited to "Sandman original" characters. We could also rename the cat if that would help. If not kept, could we at least upmerge the articles about Sandman original characters to Category:The Sandman?-Andrew c 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independence of the comic isn't an issue one way or another. The main thing is that you can easily navigate the articles about the Sandman characters from the main article, much like you can navigate the articles of a cast list for a movie from the movie's article. This eponymous category isn't needed for navigation, so it should be deleted. Dugwiki 16:17, 3 July 2007 (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/2007_July_2&oldid=1138388203"