Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

May 24[edit]

Military facilities of the United States[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Facilities of the United States military in Afghanistan to Category:Military facilities of the United States in Afghanistan
Propose renaming Category:United States military facilities in Ecuador to Category:Military facilities of the United States in Ecuador
Propose renaming Category:United States military facilities in Qatar to Category:Military facilities of the United States in Qatar
Nominator's rationale: For consistency, these three categories should be renamed to match all the others in Category:Military facilities of the United States by country. Scott Alter 22:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename for consistency; both names have the same meaning Hmains (talk) 17:23, 25 May 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:Military installations in New Jersey[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Military installations in New Jersey to Category:Military facilities in New Jersey
Nominator's rationale: On Wikipedia, "facilities" is more commonly used than "installations" when describing the military, based on a prefix search. Other states with categories for military facilities use "facility" (see Category:Military facilities of the United States by state). Additionally, all categories within Category:Military facilities by country use facility (with the exception of "bases" categories). Scott Alter 22:10, 24 May 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:Words considered as untranslatable[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. I am only partially merging the articles to Category:Language comparison. Category:Language comparison is intended for articles dealing primarily with comparison of languages or dialects. However, the article gerrymandering, for instance, is primarily about the concept and phenomenon of gerrymandering. Those articles which more directly include comparison of languages or information about translation issues I have recategorised. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Words considered as untranslatable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category seems much too vague and contains many unrelated words. And who decides what is and is not translatable? And into what language(s) are they not translatable? It just does not appear to be a useful category. CapitalR (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Per the interwiki list, many languages have no difficulty translating Gerrymandering as "Découpage électoral", "Afbakeningsknoeiery" (nice one, Africaans), "Kiesrechtgeografie", "Cyffindwyllo" etc etc though oddly the Italians & Germans can't seem to manage a word of their own. No doubt the same is true for the other words here. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this calls for POV, superfluous categorization, original research, edit wars, and verifiability problems. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to POV problems and vagueness.-Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above -- I don't think there's anything left to say. Perhaps the creator might want to work on a well-sourced article about difficulties encountered in translating. Cgingold (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Articlize and source to illustrate why they are considered untranslatable, and into which languages it is not translatable with. 70.51.9.216 (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT: if you delete them, please don't forget to put each of them back into the category they were mostly taken from: Language comparison (and maybe into Translation as well). Thanks. For the sake of the record, the words presently included are Accountability, Gerrymandering, Ilunga, Mamihlapinatapai, Saudade, and Serendipity. You might as well consider creating another (better named) category for these existing articles. Adam78 (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As category creator, perhaps you'd like to suggest a rename that might pass muster and serve as a valid, workable basis for a category. Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Rename to "untranslatable words". The problem is that some may be translatable into some languages but not others. However some may incorporate a literary (or biographic) allusion which will only be meaningful in its originakl tongue. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete words are not untranslatable anyway: they may end up as loan words in a foreign language, but that still makes them translatable. Scott Ritchie (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussions. What qualifies as untranslatable? If there is no word in one language does that mean it can be included? Considered by whom? If one person says it can not be translated and someone else says it can, then can it be inclued? Bottom line, subject and POV. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 29 May 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:Military facilities of the United States in Puerto Rico[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Military facilities of the United States in Puerto Rico to Category:Military facilities in Puerto Rico
Nominator's rationale: Both of these categories exist, but Category:Military facilities in Puerto Rico only contains one item - Category:Military facilities of the United States in Puerto Rico. As far as I am aware, there are no non-US military facilities in Puerto Rico. Including "of the United States" in the category is therefore redundant. For other military categories for US states and territories, the convention is "Military in ..." (see Category:Military in the United States by state and Category:Military in territories of the United States) and "Military facilities in ..." (see Category:Military facilities of the United States by state). Scott Alter 22:01, 24 May 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:Military installations in Rockaway, Queens[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:Rockaway, Queens. An upmerge to Category:Military in New York is not needed, since all three articles are already in the category or one of its subcategories. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Military installations in Rockaway, Queens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rockaway is a neighborhood of New York City. There are currently 3 articles in this category with no potential for growth. Each of these articles already has a better classification within the Category:Military in New York hierarchy. Furthermore, there are no other categories that I could find solely for military installations based on a section of a city. Typically, military facilities are categorized by state. Scott Alter 21:52, 24 May 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:Armed Forces in Hawaii[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Armed Forces in Hawaii to Category:Military in Hawaii
Nominator's rationale: Armed forces is a synonym of military. As far as I can tell, Hawaii is the only US State to have a category for "Armed Forces in ..." All other states only have a category for "Military in ..." (see Category:Military in the United States by state). Having both of these categories is not necessary, so they should be merged. Scott Alter 21:20, 24 May 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:Military of Puerto Rico[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Military of Puerto Rico to Category:Military in Puerto Rico
Nominator's rationale: Puerto Rico does not have its own military, as it is part of the United States. Therefore, the naming of this category should parallel the category names for other US States (Category:Military in the United States by state) and Territories (Category:Military in territories of the United States). Scott Alter 21:12, 24 May 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:New Grass Revival[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: prune and rename. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New Grass Revival to Category:New Grass Revival members
Nominator's rationale: Just having a category for the band itself is unacceptable per WP:OCAT. I suggest removing Category:New Grass Revival albums and New Grass Revival from this category and renaming it Category:New Grass Revival members, as the remaining four pages would all fit into a category of that name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:43, 24 May 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:Turkish footballers in The Netherlands[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: multiple actions: upmerge Category:Turkish footballers in The Netherlands to Category:Expatriate footballers in the Netherlands, Category:Turkish expatriate footballers, and Category:Turkish expatriates in the Netherlands; relist Category:Turkish footballers in United Kingdom to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 30, since the category was not tagged; no action on Category:English-born footballers who played for Turkey. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Turkish footballers in The Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Such is a over categorization and per olf cfd. Matthew_hk tc 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated

*Category:English-born footballers who played for Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Matthew_hk tc 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Category:Expatriate footballers in the Netherlands and Category:Turkish expatriate footballers already suitably cover this intersection. Neier (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to double upmerge for the first two, and keep the third, and apologies for not noticing the two additions before. My original comment applied only to the first; but, the same rationale applies to the second one. The third category should be treated differently from the other two, because as pointed out below, the national teams categorization is different from the league categorizations. Neier (talk) 03:43, 25 May 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:English Regency[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: relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 30 to determine which of the proposed names is better. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English Regency to Category:British Regency
Nominator's rationale: This category is at its present title because the main article was wrongly named English Regency in 2002 and somehow managed to remain at that title, despite protests on the talk page, until I renamed it today. I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend the title "English Regency", which is certainly not what modern history textbooks use and is not even a commonly used phrase in the UK. About time we put it right! Deb (talk) 18:11, 24 May 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:Closed railway stations in Ireland[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Closed railway stations in Ireland to Category:Disused railway stations in Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Completely redundant categories, just phrased differently. The former has only one article in it. Arsenikk (talk) 16:55, 24 May 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:Musicians discovered on MySpace[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. For anyone who thinks that a list is viable and wants to create such a list, here is the list of articles that appeared in the category. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians discovered on MySpace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - I don't believe this particular distinction rises to the level of significance required to serve as the basis for a category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure about this - I rather suspect it is defining. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I am aware that there's a fairly recent phenomenon of new musicians being "discovered" -- i.e. launching their careers -- via the internet. A broader category encompassing that entire group of musicians might well make sense. Are you suggesting that there's something especially distinctive about being "discovered on MySpace" that sets them apart from that larger group? Cgingold (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it might be defining but may also boarder on WP:OR. Might make more sense to listify and source. How do we really know if someone was discovered on myspace if they also sent a demo to a producer who later signed them? Was the demo sent to the producer or their myspace exposure the reason for being discovered? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really arguing one way or the other on the merits of such a category. The one thing I would say, though, is that it should not be based on the notion of "being discovered". If anything, it might possibly be based on having launched their recording career via the internet. The most notable example that I'm aware of in that regard would be the Arctic Monkeys; I'm sure there have been quite a few others. Cgingold (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnnod or Rename to "Musicians discovered on the internet" or "Discovered musicians" per Cgold. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague inclusion criterion (what constitutes being "discovered"?). Will lead to a proliferation of similar categories for YouTube, Facebook, Friendster, etc. Might be some justification for merging to an Internet personalities category but those are pretty vague IMHO as well. Otto4711 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CGingold and Otto4711. The rise to relative prominence is a complicated proces that lends to good a story in articles (ideally well-referenced and organized), but is not precise and defined enough for categorization. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous title. No objection to resurrection with a definitive name and a clear definition on what should be included but I suspect that a list would work better. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless and trivial; who discovered them? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 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.

Cats:Fooian(-)Booians to Cats:Booians of Fooian descent for Angola, Belgium, Brunei, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Costa Rica, Colombia, Croatia, and Cuba[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 except Category:Iraqi Cubans, which will be deleted. I made one change: "Lithunian descent" → "Lithuanian descent". –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging unless otherwise labelled
Nominator's rationale: continuation of changing Fooian(-)Booians to Booians of Fooian descent, as per several recent alike nominations Mayumashu (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
emptying the ones you ve mentioned of their incorrect links - thanks for checking into them Mayumashu (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC) I ve checked - the 'Spanish-Cubans' page lists Cubans of first, second and in one case third generation Spanish descent; I removed Mr. Alsultany leaving 'Iraqi Cuban' empty and "deletable"; one of three listed under 'German Cuban' was born in Cuban and immigrated to the States (and was therefore at one time if not longer a Cuban citizen) Mayumashu (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how does keeping the naming change this at all? a lot of people consider Fooian-Booian to still apply to someone who is a half, quarter, or even less of Fooian ancestry. it is only insisting on providing sources to support claims that will ultimately reduce considerably the number of article pages linked, no matter which naming style is used Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fundemental difference between to two. The vague hyphenated term can be limited, because Wikipedia can decide what it means for Wikipedia purposes. However, limiting "descent" to citizens or people born there, or any limitation for that matter, is not staying true to the defention of descent. According to Merriam-Webster, "descent" means "derivation from an ancestor".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the vague hyphenated term cannot be limited, that s the biggest problem with it - it can mean whatever one wants it to, full, less than half, a quarter, any amount ancestry, or dual citizenship, or "significant connection" with both countries, being an expat. to one while citizen to other, citizen to neither with ancestry to both. descent is as you ve said having one or more ancestor (any percentage of ancestry) but use of it is limited by having to provide sources to substantiate claims Mayumashu (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're saying. The "provide-sources" requirement applies equally to any cat name. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to substantiate the cat page naming, sources to legitimize claiming someone is of a particular ancestry. Having to provide a source to substantiate this kind of claim drastically reduces the number of article pages that can legitimately be linked to any of these descent pages. Mayumashu (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, and per previous comments. (Brewcrewer does seem to think that we can re-define Swiss Brazilian or Americo-Liberian, even if their articles say something completely different.) I am not defending the existence of all the above, merely pleading for a change to a meaningful name. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom; the categories are somewhat problematic no matter which name is chosen, in my opinion, but the proposed ones at least have the benefit of being somewhat clearer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I abstain from voting; but would like to that cfds like this one again illustrate the complexity of having categorizations on the basis of ethnicity and race. 'Descent' is extremly ambigious. Some categories are quite uncontroversial, but having separate Category:Cubans of Spanish descent and Category:Cubans of Black African descent categories means having classifications on the lines of racial biology. --Soman (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are meant to be racial/ethnic classifications, but many Wikipedians seem obsessed with classifying everyone (except the Queen of England apparently, who poses as the epitomy of pure English blood-LOL) with racial and ethnic characteristics based on some stereotypes that people of similar ancestry (descent) must be the same - I guess I as a Latino in the US is supposed to be a tomato picker or lawnmower (at best). Great. One step forward, two steps back. <sigh> Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy rename - according to precedent. However people should only be categorised like this if the ancestry is a notable characteristic for them, which will usually only be within a genmeration or two of immigration. After that the "melting pot" and cross-breeding with those of other descent will render such categorisation as trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as trivial intersections, OCAT, subjective, NPOV, and ultimately useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 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:Non Practicing Latter Day Saints[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non Practicing Latter Day Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and don't merge with anything. If someone is a "non-practicing member" of any religious group, then the person's membership in the group is not at all defining for that person. This is demonstrated by the current occupants of the category — Eliza Dushku and Amy Adams. Having at one point been baptised into a Latter Day Saint church is not defining for either person and is essentially a piece of what some would call "fancruft". I think categories like this might result from a belief that every single person needs a religion category attached to them. If religion plays no defining role in the notability of the person, they don't. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Didn't we discuss something similar in the past? I took a quick look and did not see it. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an excellent example of a non-defining characteristic. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While one can abstain from religious practice and self-identify with a religion, the combination of the two is clear overcategorization. If somehow relevant and the biography is detailed enough, some aspects of a person's religious life can be mentioned in the text. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we do this for any other religion and "non-practicing" is potentially nebulous. It could potentially include everything from people who have "not a lot" of Mormonism in them, Katherine Heigl[1], to people who just don't attend service regularly.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what practices are not being observed? NPOV, subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 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 Wars languages[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. I've upmerged the one entry. Flowerparty☀ 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Wars languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is a grand total of one article in this category Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe on the Star Wars it would be OK, but here? I can see why there'd be any Star Wars language articles, let alone enough for a category Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parent categories, so that the article is not entirely removed from those category trees. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both as per Black Falcon. A Stars Wars languages cat is not unjustifiable on the long run, but the articles would have to be established first. gidonb (talk) 14:37, 25 May 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:Solomon Islander painters[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: renamed by category creator. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Solomon Islander painters to Category:Solomon Islands painters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Solomon Islander" is a noun, not an adjective. The adjective used for other categories of Solomon Islanders is "Solomon Islands". The change from "Solomon Islander" to "Solomon Islands" was made for a number of other categories in a 2008 FEB 08 CfD Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, though i'm afraid I've just prodded the only article. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (comment by category creator). Yes, my mistake, sorry. I'll fix it myself. Aridd (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's OK, you don't need to as it will be cleared up as a result of this Cf....ah, too late. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. It didn't take long to do. Sorry for the bother. Aridd (talk) 08:30, 24 May 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:Churches and Spiritual Centers by denomination[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. Flowerparty☀ 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Churches and Spiritual Centers by denomination to Category:Churches by denomination or delete
Nominator's rationale: These categories seem to be redundant. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge the target category is for buildings only, these are denominations. I have added the sole contents, one sub-cat, to Category:New religious movements where it belongs, as some of these can't really be described as Christian, so this can just be Deleted. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I had missed that the target category was for church buildings rather than organisations/denominations. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I only struck through my suggestion to merge the two categories. –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:40, 26 May 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:Chizu Express[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 per consensus. Doczilla STOMP! 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chizu Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a railway company. Only one of the 14 stations linked from Template:Chizu Express is currently a bluelink. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a natural category for articles on this line. The creator of this category is a prolific creator of articles on stations. Even though only one link is blue now, let's give it a chance to grow. Fg2 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the same reasons as above. It may not be an urgently required category just yet, but it will become necessary at some point in time anyway. --DAJF (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as part of an overall categorization scheme, and, for the reasons above. Neier (talk) 01:50, 25 May 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:UK railway maps[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 Railway maps of the United Kingdom; no obivous consensus here but there seems no point in leaving it where it is. Flowerparty☀ 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:UK railway maps to Category:United Kingdom railway maps or Category:Railway maps of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: To expand "UK" to "United Kingdom". –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to renaming - Category:Railway maps of the United Kingdom for preference —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a map not an image by default? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A map contains drawing or representations. It is a publication. So what we have is an image that depicts that map in a form we can display. Under Category:Maps images is not often used in names, but it does appear in some cat names. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Roundhouse on this one - Images of ... maps seems like a Tautology to me. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 subcategories of templates as well. I'm not sure that a template is an image. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 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:Templates for Railway Lines of Japan[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. Flowerparty☀ 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Templates for Railway Lines of Japan to Category:Templates for railway lines of Japan or Category:Templates for railway lines in Japan
Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation, per the convention of Category:Rail routemap templates. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments below, and in light of the fact that Category:Railway lines of Japan was recently renamed to Category:Railway lines in Japan, I agree that the second option listed above ("in Japan") is the better choice. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:21, 30 May 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:CPSL 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 to the n dash title. Flowerparty☀ 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:CPSL players to Category:Canadian Professional Soccer League (1998 — 2005) players
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories; abbreviations are generally discouraged in category titles. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:06, 24 May 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_May_24&oldid=1138391116"