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.
Is there a need for both of these? How much does the prefecture include that the island does not- it's not crystal clear from the articles; which give a higher population for the Island than the Prefecture, which is obviously an effect of one number being from 2009 and the other from 2008. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (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:Companies based in New Albany, Ohio[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is overcategorisation per per WP:OC#SMALL (small with no prospect of expansion). New Albany, Ohio is a village with a population of only about 6 or 7,000, and is unlikely to many more notable companies. Either merge to the state category, or renaming it to serve as a by-county category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer a county category of the two. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that New Albany, Ohio is located in Franklin and Licking Counties, it presents an interesting case. We use categories to place articles in multiple parents and to do some grouping. My initial thought was to keep and create both Category:Companies based in Franklin County, Ohio and Category:Companies based in Licking County, Ohio as parents. But the tricky issue is can we tell what county the companies listed are physically in? If not, then we need to keep and parent as I suggested. Maybe it is time for Ohio to start adding some county level categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the above merge happened. Can another admin merge this as suggested by postdlf? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2010 (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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Computer hardware[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. — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Most of the subcategories use the term collection rather than compilation. Cjc13 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For "most" read 3 out of 6, with 2 other using compilation. Maybe Category:Collections and compilations is a better title, or do the sub-cats of compilations need moving to collections (or vice-versa)? Lugnuts (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rename below would make it 4 out of 6 for collections. I think collection is the more general term, as compilation suggests some rearranging of the material, i.e. a more specific form of collection. In practice, compilation seems to be used mainly for music complilations, whereas collections or anthologies seem to be used for books and other printed material. Cjc13 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This functions as a collection of like named categories. Delete may well be the best choice. Collection and compilation are as expected dab pages! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Most of the entries use the term collection rather than compilation. Cjc13 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak not do - parent cat is "compilation" - also new name also suggests the possibility of "personal or museum collections of ..." rather than the "collated releases of ...." which I think is not quite intended.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To meet WP:NPOV and following the articles move for this reason. While the proposed name follows the name of the lead article, I think that Category:Student residential areas is a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename probably as Occuli (no strong view on how). The present name is perjorative and hence POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Student quarters" could, imo, be mistaken as a category for individual dorm buildings rather than districts: in other words, "living quarters," rather than the "quarter" of a city. So Category:Student residential areas is a clearer and safer bet, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom or per Occuli. I proposed the rename of the lead article, and was equivocal about my choice of alternative there, although I could support Student Quarter with dictionary definitions. But yes, rename somehow. - Brunnian (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning to delete). None of the proposed new names is adequate. Both "residential areas" and "quarters" imply some organized settlement, and/or an intentional community (like a purpose-built campus), which is not the case. NVO (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the lead article, student quarter contains a significant list of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, significant and a fairly indiscriminate one. There are organized communities (University of Dayton Ghetto) and ordinary towns or districts (Wavertree) infested by students. I am not confident that both extremes belong to the list? NVO (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the case; aren't campuses and university towns neighborhoods too? NVO (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:NOTCENSORED and WP:UCN is "student ghetto" further, "student quarter" was renamed to its current name without anything like consensus. I also don't see why there is a WP:NPOV problem. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing (or alternative name propose) I agree that the name is not contentious, and probably common use. "Student residental areas" is acceptable - but perhaps caling Duck as Duck is better and clearer here - despite the vaguely emotive name.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename for consistency with Category:Stadiums and its sub-categories. Both forms of the plural are in use but "stadiums" is the more common; this is not a case of WP:ENGVAR. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale: there is no precedent for catting activists by ethnic/national descent (it s the only such subcat of Category:American activists) Mayumashu (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. don't know how/why I forgot to add this page too Mayumashu (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (and if necessary repurpose) to Category:American activists concerning Palestine. This is not (or should not be) an ethnic category, but one concerning the subject on which they are activists. This will commonly be identical, but not necessarily. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 08:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- no reason to change my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Fan clubs aren't just for musical groups or musicians, so it's not clear that this category strictly applies to musical releases. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest 'Fan club release albums' (as the 3rd or 4th one is described as such). This does seem to be a defining characteristic, mentioned immediately in each article. Occuli (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fan club-release albums. I'm no grammar expert, but I think one should be there. Otherwise, renamed without hyphen, as suggested by Occuli. — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion on the proposed rename, but I want to comment on the issue of grammar: I may be mistaken, but I think there should be another hyphen—i.e., Category:Fan-club-release albums—since "fan" and "club-release" do not modify "albums" separately. -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:21, 21 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Eliminate unnecessary level of navigation and match the naming of the other categories in the proposed parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – I can't offhand see any point in this rather odd category. Occuli (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it was created to contain Category:White people as well, which was then speedily deleted as a re-creation. This all seems to have happened around 15 Jan 2010. Various other categories such as Category:Red were deleted the previous week. Occuli (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2010 (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:Disused railway stations in central London[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. London categories are geographically subdivided by the City of London and the 32 London boroughs, which is the lowest level administrative division. Central London is not an officially defined area and for the purposes of a historical category is particularly problematic as the definition has changed over time. MRSC (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – delete on condition that each is put in the appropriate 'borough' category (most are already in one). See Category:Disused railway stations in London, which is subcatted by borough. Occuli (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2010 (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. Nothing to merge, as the category was emptied. — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. A songwriter is some one who writes either lyrics or music, therefore any entry in the music category would be equally at home in the "songwriter" category. It is also overcategorization. Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the creator of this category was notified at the time of the initial listing at CfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, this category has now been emptied by the creator. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music, Therefore the sole entry in the 'lyrics by' would fit just as snugly in the songwriter category. Richhoncho (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the creator of this category was notified at the time of the initial listing at CfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music' - not always the case. A person who re-writes the lyrics to an old song is not the song writer. I'm not sure if that is the case with Bobby Troup. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be the case this time. But this does raise points which I shall raise over at the project. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. An undefined category, which makes its meaning kind of vague. Seems to be for sources (newspapers, etc.) in which "financial information" can be found. Since financial information can be found in hundreds of thousands of sources, this probably isn't a good way to categorize. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something (Financial news services?Financial data companies? as a subcat of Category:News agencies and perhaps Category:Financial services companies) matching current content of the category. Companies that specialize in financial data (Bloomberg, Reuters) are clearly different from generalist news agencies. And you have to believe me that no, you cannot "find" their services "in hundreds of thousand of sources". The bulk of financial data never reaches public information channels. NVO (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can find "financial information" in hundreds of thousands of sources, which is what I had originally stated. The current name is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. The category could be renamed to limit its scope, but then it will be something quite different to what exists currently. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- the contents are (mostly at least) a coherent category, but its scope needs to be defined better. Most of the subjects are primary (or near primary) sources of stock market and related data - stock prices, credit rating for company (and government) bonds, news agencies specialising in this. Newspapers will largely be deriving datsa from these or commenting on it, and so are not quite the same: perhaps Financial data primary sources or Financial data providers or Share and bond information sources. Whatever we adopt, a headnote will be needed to define the category, so that companies providing the credit rating for individuals (such as Experian) should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
leave as is - Financial Information is indeed a category. Please see the page Financial_data_vendor for the industry which services this category. Maybe a headnote can be added to explain the category. There are indeed numerous public avenues for this data, but the vast depth of the data is of little interest to the general public. However, the fact that the data exists is important and should be included in an encyclopaedia which is as much used by experts as by Joe (and Jo) Public!Rgnewbury (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. PBS never had a separate sports division -- all sports programs were produced by other companies or local stations for PBS. azumanga (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2010 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 20#Category:People from Okinawa. — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)