Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:People by Russian city (disambiguate)[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: not renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per convention for cities that share a name with a state, county, or similar entity (in this case an oblast or krai) (see eg. Category:People from Lagos (city), Category:People from Rome (city), Category:People from Dublin (city), etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unambiguous titles should always be used as category names. 70.51.8.112 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of any of these. Surely Category:People from Kaliningrad and Category:People from Kaliningrad Oblast (for instance) are already sufficiently distinguished by the fact that one ends in "Oblast" and the other doesn't? --Paul A (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no problem here. Categories like "People from Volgograd Oblast" can be created. - Darwinek (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The oblasts and cities don't share names. While both the city of Lagos and Lagos State can be referred to as Lagos, the city of Dublin and Dublin County as Dublin, only the cities of Kaliningrad/Moscow/Irkutsk etc. can be referred to as simply Kaliningrad/Moscow/Irkutsk, Kaliningrad Oblast/Moscow Oblast/Irkutsk Oblast cannot. Oblast is not a qualifier here, it is part of the name. Colchicum (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Colchium, why would we want to make category names longer and less intuitive? Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I'm not convinced about Dublin, Lagos, Rome either. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I see it, if the category name is ambiguous, then it requires maintenance patrols to keep it properly populated. So I voted to support it, for that reason. These aren't articles, so maintenance requires more work. 70.55.87.10 (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all of the above. These category names are not ambiguous, not with the federal subjects of which they are administrative centers anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At present the category will apply to the whole Oblast, which includes the city. I see no need to sgregate them until they become overpopulated and it is necessary to break them down into smaller places, at which time the oblast category will become a parent to several more. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (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:Alice derived works[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 Category:Alice in Wonderland derivatives and adaptations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alice derived works to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is completely ambiguous as it fails to identify from which "Alice" these works are derived. Some smart alec is gonna put Flo in there, I just know it. The lead article is Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland but a) that article is a horrifying mass dump of unreferenced trivia and b) "influenced by" is an invitation to original research. Category:Adaptations of Alice in Wonderland might work but I'm certainly open to suggestions. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think those adaption of X articles can be classified on one of that category's subcat. Striking answered comment above.--Lenticel (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK with considering a sequel written by a different author as an "adaptation" for categorization purposes as long as it's also categorized as a sequel. IIRC the film features sequences from the books done in a nightmarish cast so it's not that great a stretch to consider it an adaptation. Otto4711 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 'Category:Alice in Wonderland derivatives and adaptations' - sequals fit the cat IMHO and Dreamchild would also. "derivatives" would have to be clarifies on the category to refer to works properly linked to the source (like dreamchild) and not to some band using the name "Alice" claiming it was after the book. I'm also ok without 'derivatives' but don't feel that it deals with the dreamchild issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, for clarity. Also, Category:Alice characters should also be renamed for the same reasons as above. 78.133.61.125 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Looking Glass-Wars[edit]

Category:The Looking Glass-Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for this material, all of which is extensively interlinked. If kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:The Looking Glass Wars to correct the punctuation and match the lead article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (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.

Kennedy Center honorees[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: Upmerge to Category:Kennedy Center honorees. Many of these are already listed in the parent, but some are not. These subcats also are incomplete so that a listify would not buy much. While a listify is the correct solution, it can be done after the merge. We only need one list, so it would be easier to create after the merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kennedy Center Honors producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kennedy Center Honors actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kennedy Center Honors dancers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kennedy Center Honors singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kennedy Center Honors instrumentalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kennedy Center Honors musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kennedy Center Honors composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kennedy Center Honors playwrights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss with no category descriptions it's unclear what these categories are for. Presumably they are intended to subcategorize Category:Kennedy Center honorees by discipline, but a number of the names are ambiguous (are "Kennedy Center Honors producers" producers who are recipients or are they producers of the honors show, and so on). The questions are whether it's useful to subcategorize honorees by discipline, whether these are for honorees only, and if so how should the categories should be named to reflect that. Otto4711 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note, fwiw, previous discussion; they should maybe be renamed in line with this. The only producer in the cat did win in 1982. I think the whole mini-tree is borderline OCAT, but if kept, subcats would be ok if someone were to finish sorting the main category into the subcats. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all into Category:Kennedy Center honorees as Kennedy Center Honors do not seem to be awarded by discipline. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify - I assume this is essentially an awards category, soemthign we stopped having some months ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is, but we still have a big Category:Award winners - would you delete the Nobels etc? We have tightened it up, & personally I feel this one just makes it. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listifying and deleting really isn't a good option here because none of these categories is anything close to fully populated. Most of them have three or fewer entries. If someone wants to nominate the parent Category:Kennedy Center honorees for listification and deletion that's a separate discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to 'Category:Kennedy Center honorees' and listify per subcats - no strong need to classify them on the "category". However, it would probably be good to create an article with a cat based listing, linking it to the new category. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:45, 19 June 2008 (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:American country music songwriters[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American country music songwriters to Category:American country songwriters
Nominator's rationale: All of the other categories of this sort are named "American (foo) songwriters", not "American (foo) music songwriters". I suggest removing the "music" part to match the nomenclature of the other categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, unless there's songwriters that don't write music. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's consistent with Cat:American country music and Cat:Country music songwriters (and all its subcats). If we're going to look at one we should look at all. Seems like the current name is best since it's clear that 'country' refers to the music rather than the provincial bumpkins making it. Keep Flowerparty☀ 01:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though we have "Category:American foo music" all over the place, all the other songwriter cats are just "American foo songwriters", not "American foo music songwriters". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the state of Cat:Songwriters by style, there doesn't look to be an established convention either way on this. I can only see two other categories that fit this pattern - the jazz one and the rock one. Actually 'American country songwriters' would make sense as the title by analogy with Cat:American country singers and the like. But I don't think we should rename this unless we're addressing everything under Cat:Country music songwriters. No point solving one inconsistency by creating another. Flowerparty☀ 14:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "songwriters" keeps it clear enough that "music" is redundant. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:48, 19 June 2008 (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:List of Malaysia Airlines destinations page[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as empty and per discussion. BencherliteTalk 10:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:List of Malaysia Airlines destinations page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category not needed due to Afd of articles once in the category Россавиа Диалог 14:00, 3 June 2008 (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:Vengeance[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 Category:Vengeance to Category:Night of Champions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vengeance to Category:Night of Champions
Nominator's rationale: To match the move of the category's main article, WWE Vengeance, to WWE Night of Champions.  Oakster  Talk  12:45, 3 June 2008 (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:Human animated 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: merge Category:Human animated characters to Category:Animated human characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Human animated characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcatigorization. It only needs to be specified if the character is not a human. Otherwise the list will never end. Delete Piemanmoo (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but rename to Category:Animated human characters or similar. Mickey Mouse was a human animated character - the human who animated him was Walt Disney. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Grutness -- the current name is not grammatically correct. Cgingold (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. Meaningful category for characters important enough to have their own article or redirect. The objections are not clear. It is a meaningful subdivision of Category:Animated characters, just like other subcategories of that category. If the objection is that it could become large: there is no reason to assume that, most animated characters are animals, but if it would get too large, we can create more subcategories. --Patrick (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. It is a subdivision by species, but needs to become a bit more clear. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2008 (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:E85 flexible-fuel 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: merge Category:E85 flexible-fuel vehicles to Category:Flexible-fuel vehicles. Matches main article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:E85 flexible-fuel vehicles to Category:Flexible-fuel vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category that overlaps with the suggested merge target. The discussion may want to consider a Reverse Merge since this category name may be less ambiguous then the suggested merge target. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. swaq 15:53, 3 July 2008 (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.

Theater categories[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 all, adding state names per precedence. Kbdank71 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. Every other (of several hundred) theatre-related categories, including parents and children of these seven categories, uses the spelling "theatre". (That includes all the other US-theater-related categories, so there doesn't appear to be a precedent for using local spelling.) --Paul A (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the recent emerging consensus for all categories that include an American city name also include the state, if these end up renamed the New Orleans and Pittsburgh cats should reflect that consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming non-US ones (the first 3) per Category:Theatres. I think US-usage ought to apply to US-categories (even if it hasn't been implemented consistently). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this "theatre" in US question has come up before. Anyone remember where? Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given these links, I support "theatre" being used throughout. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks HP! Though I was thinking of another one making the same move more recently, so the precedent seems firm. Rename all per nom, going with concensus on adding state names. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2008 (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:Ethanol 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: upmerge. Kbdank71 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ethanol vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: OCAT. Single entry category that is adequately handled by the existing Category:Green vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2008 (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:People from Kostroma Oblast, Russia[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 Category:People from Kostroma Oblast, Russia to Category:People from Kostroma Oblast. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Kostroma Oblast, Russia to Category:People from Kostroma Oblast
Nominator's rationale: there are no other places named Kostroma Oblast Mayumashu (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2008 (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:North Ossetia[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 Category:North Ossetia to Category:North Ossetia-Alania and Category:Airports in North Ossetia to Category:Airports in North Ossetia-Alania. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: to match official name of this subject of the Russian federation - see article page North Ossetia-Alania Mayumashu (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (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.

Nature centers[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 all. BencherliteTalk 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories use American English spelling rather than international English spelling (which is the form used in all the listed regions). By the usual "Render unto Caesar" rule, they should be spelt according to the most widely accepted local English spelling:

I was unsure about the Canadian ones, but the article Canadian English states that centre is the standard Canadian spelling, and the confirmation comes from over half of the places listed on the List of nature centres in Canada. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 3 June 2008 (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:Moscow culture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Culture in Moscow. BencherliteTalk 13:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Moscow culture to Category:Muscovite culture
Nominator's rationale: correct adjectival form of 'Moscow' is 'Muscovite' Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2008 (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:Star Trek materials[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; per discussion, list has been created. Kbdank71 20:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Trek materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator has removed at least two redirects from the category, e.g. [1] [2], without explaining in his edit summaries that this (alone) is what he was doing. The category now contains at least 2 articles plus 6 redirects. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place the articles in Category:Star Trek and delete this category. Most redirects should not be categorized per WP:Categorizing redirects and the presence of the redirects in this category doesn't serve as justification for the category. This is a small category with little or no growth potential, given that the various redirects appear not to have had articles but were created as redirects. The Trekkie and Trekker Wikipedians, if there were independent reliable sources to support articles on any of these materials, would most likely have written them by now. Otto4711 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It is of some encyclopedic value to keep this category as a sub-category of category:Fictional materials.
    • WP:Categorizing redirects states that redirects can be categorised for several purposes including Subtopic categorization, Categorization of multiple taxonomies, and Categorization of list entries. These were the reasons for categorising these redirects.
    • This category is probably one of several that were created to provide more useful sub-categories to the once bloated Category:Star Trek. Rather than upmerge these articles/redirects to that head category, I suggest category:Star Trek terminology would be a better target if the nominated category is not kept. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe these redirects qualify under any of these categorization criteria. They are not "taxonomies," they are not pointing to a list of Star Trek materials (most redirect to the episodes in which they were mentioned, Latinum redirects to a general list of fictional currencies, and so on) and as most of these are mentioned in a single episode of the series only, they aren't "subtopics" of Star Trek. Place the articles in Category:Fictional materials also, but I don't agree that "Star Trek terminology" is an appropriate destination within the Star Trek category structure. However, if locating them there or in some other sub-cat instead of the main cat facilitates the deletion of this category, then I'm fine with it. The main category currently has 11 articles in it so two more aren't going to bloat it. The redirects, however, should not be categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have misunderstood the rule allowing categorisation of multiple taxonomies; I thought the biological example was just an obvious case in point. I thought the policy was wider than that and meant that redirects could be categorised if this facilitated finding them in multiple independent category trees, such as category:Fictional materials and category:Star Trek. This needs clarifying.
  • I also see that the rule about Categorisation of list entries gives an example of using it in a quite different way (alterative indexing only within one fictional franchise) to the way it currently works for the examples in this category (i.e. indexing items that have been merged into Lists which are not exclusive to Star Trek). It also says that minor redirects should not be categorised outside their area of interest (franchise), and I will remove these e.g. [3]. However, this does not rule out categorising them this way within the Star Trek category structure.
  • As for Subtopic categorization, I believe that you may have misunderstood that aspect of the policy. It is not a question of whether Star Trek materials or any individual material is a subtopic of Star Trek. Rather, it allow categorisation of redirects where the subject of the redirect has been merged or written up as a subtopic of a larger article. This does apply and I therefore believe the redirects should remain categorised.
  • The main category:Star Trek should be restricted to articles that are either about the series as a whole or are otherwise unclassifiable, so I cannot support moving these micro-topics up into it.
  • Despite your comment, only one of the redirects (Nitrium) was mentioned in one episode alone; I would not object to de-categorising that one, or even deleting it. The rest are all sufficiently significant recurring items. I therefore still argue for Keep. However, if this category does not survive, may I listify it? That could result in a better product than this category, especially if restricted to items mentioned in multiple episodes. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your decision to listify Star Trek materials is independent of the outcome of this discussion. The resulting list, should you choose to make it, does not in my view offer support to the notion of categorizing the redirect or for keeping this category to house List of Star Trek materials, which can go live in Category:Star Trek lists. I do need to point out, however, that merging a specific sub-cat to the parent despite its being otherwise classifiable is not without precedent. Category:Star Trek music was merged to the parent and its sole occupant, Star Trekkin', currently resides is the parent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen Listify then delete as the outcome of CFD discussions. Are you saying that it is not a valid outcome? that CFDs should delete and be damned?
  • Yes, I know that Category:Star Trek music was merged to the parent, but before deletion it had two dozen occupants, not just one! Deleting the category without first listifying it removed valid and encyclopedic information from Wikipedia, which I traced through the edit history and recreated in a much more valuable form as List of Star Trek composers and music.
  • I had not suggested that listifying this one would add any support for my argument that the redirects may be categorised. However, since you have raised it, in fact it would, because if I created a list by type (e.g. metals, fabrics...), then categorising the redirects would allow an alphabetical alternative index, precisely like the example of Categorisation of list entries. Nevertheless that was not my intention, nor am I proposing it now.
  • Clearly it would be worth achieving clarification of the policy WP:Categorizing redirects because each of us, as responsible editors, are coming to opposite conclusions about its application to the category nominated here. Shall we work out the discussion here, even if I relinquish its relevance to the outcome of this CFD, or shall we take it to the policy talk page?
  • Anyway, I am coming to the view that a list will be more worthwhile than this category. A listify then delete decision here would grant validity in advance to a new List of Star Trek materials, and if that is supported here then I will agree to delete the category. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is stopping you from making List of Star Trek materials right now. You don't have to wait for the outcome of the CFD and a listify and delete closure here is not required for you to create such a list. And I should have said the music category's sole correctly categorized item, as neither composers nor instruments that happened to have been used to make music associated with ST should ever have been included in it. Otto4711 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (What, Theme from Star Trek was not properly categorised as Star Trek music? Come on!) If you wish to achieve consensus, please address the questions and policy interpretations that I have raised in good faith. Sorry if I'm coming across as a time-waster; I'm here to learn - please teach me. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have created List of Star Trek materials which provides an alternative and hopefully better means of indexing than this category. However, no valid reason has been given to delete the category. It is not appropriate to clutter the main category:Star Trek with minor articles; this subcategory provides a valid sub-group. As well as the List and some redirects, it also has three substantive articles at the moment, which seems sufficient to retain it. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still a small category with little or no growth potential and the redirects still do not meet the guidelines for categorization. One of those "substantive" articles is an unreferenced unexpandable stub with no independent notability and a good chunk of original research. Another might just barely pass the notability threshold but probably not. Otto4711 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you are asserting that the redirects do not meet the criteria for categorisation, but you have not responded to the reasoning given above. I have argued that they do, and invited you to work through the interpretation of the policy, here or elsewhere. I'm willing to work on this together to achieve consensus. Subtopic categorisation does apply (permitting categorisation of the redirects) and two other limbs of that policy may also apply. You seem to be referring to Trellium-D; if that gets merged and redirected again (as I believe it should) then the redirect should still be categorised here. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (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:Kit Car[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 Category:Kit Car to Category:Kit cars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kit Car to Category:Kit cars
Nominator's rationale: Per capitalization and pluralization standards for categories (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)). --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Will still puzzle the Americans though. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2008 (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/2008_June_3&oldid=1138123513"