Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

July 30[edit]

Category:Bioethanol[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. Courcelles 06:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bioethanol to Category:Ethanol

Nominator's rationale: Merge. How we we make ethanol? By fermentation. So isn't all ethanol bio, at least if you exclude the small amount produced from petroleum by products? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No, not all alcohol processes involve fermentation (see Ethanol#Ethylene_hydration). Anyway, applying bio- to lethal denatured alcohol sounds odd. The relationship between the very narrow category:Ethanol and category:Alcohol deserves more attention. Right now they are siblings. East of Borschov 06:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. At the same time maybe some entries fit better in the Category:Ethanol fuel. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 5 August 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:Live CD[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:

Relisted at 2010 AUG 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless we are willing to create subcategories to organize these by what they do, navigation is much better served by List of live CDs. If kept we have two issues with the name. At a minimum it should be Category:Live CDs. Since it is not limited to CDs, the name is misleading as it can include DVDs. I do expect some discussion here due to the nature of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:Operating system distributions bootable from read-only media - as it could be confused with live albums released on CD. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:09, 31 July 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:Proposed geothermal power and heating stations[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Proposed geothermal power and heating stations to Category:Proposed geothermal power stations

Category:Geothermal power and heating stations to Category:Geothermal power stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better match the name used in other categories in this tree. Since any power plant could provide heat for sale, I'm not sure how useful this subcategory is. Now if we have a bunch of articles for Category heat generating stations, then we could reconsider. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a second category to this nomination as a parent. There is one article here that is about a facility that provides heat to customers. I don't think that merits the dual inclusion naming. If there are a sufficient number of these they would merit an individual category since proving heat and generating electricity are quite different. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Vegaswikian: Include pages in both categories (incl. the new one), don't make intersection categories. (This one makes more sense than Category:Blue-haired Sweedish drummers, but there's no demonstrated need for it yet.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I see the logic in the current category's name but I think that the shorter standard name will be ok if there will be guidelines added that this category includes both power and heating stations. Beagel (talk) 17:44, 5 August 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:National Register of Historic Places listings in several New York State subareas[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with previous decision and widespread practice, use "Category:National Register of Historic Places in..." rather than "Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in...". Proposal is just about dropping the word "listings" within the category names. This was just discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#County/City-specific NRHP categories where i will now also post notice of this CFD. Categories to be changed:

I think that's all of them. --doncram (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of others from cities and townships in Upstate, New York. How are those categories usually handled? ----DanTD (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Category:National Register of Historic Places in New York by county, I previously walked up and down the category tree. I found that all the others do not use the word "listings in the category name, consistent with past decisions and consistent with practice nation-wide. There's just the different usage in the Nassau and Suffolk county categories and subcategories which needs to be changed to conform with all other practice (and previous decisions). --doncram (talk) 21:33, 9 August 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:Climate change in Texas[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 all. Courcelles 06:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Climate change in Texas to Category:Climate change in the United States by state

Category:Climate change in Kentucky to Category:Climate change in the United States by state

Category:Climate change in West Virginia to Category:Climate change in the United States by state

Category:Climate change in Nevada to Category:Climate change in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Merge. A series of small categories where all of the articles are not directly about climate change. Better to up merge so that if we get more articles they are in one place and we can determine how best to sub-categorize. I'm not proposing a multiple up merge since the articles really should be in the correct trees already. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<rolls eyes> These are ridiculous. Thank goodness that he (our old friend Mac/Nukeless/Nopetro) stopped after creating just 4 of them. All of the articles about "Climate change in State X" should be upmerged as proposed to Category:Climate change in the United States by state. The one possible exception among the other 3 articles that perhaps should be upmerged as well is Greenhouse gas emissions by Kentucky. Do we have other such articles for any of the other states? Cgingold (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question: As near as I can tell, we do not have any similar articles for other states. Cgingold (talk) 12:50, 31 July 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:Drip irrigation[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. Courcelles 06:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drip irrigation to Category:Low-flow irrigation systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not sure if this meets OC small or not. Drip is a type of low flow system which editors keep trying add here. So probably better to rename to make the category a tad broader to reflect what editors really want to include here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. The Low-flow irrigation system article says that drip irrigation is but one type of low-low irrigation system. Hmains (talk) 03:56, 1 August 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:James Bond locations[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. Courcelles 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Over categorization. Clearly these are not going to be defining for most of these places. For a location like the Las Vegas Strip, New York City or Los Angeles International Airport this will only lead to category clutter as more of these are created. There are already two lists that adequately cover this category's contents. Note, it would be nice if the CfD would also clarify if and when films or shows are shot/set in a location like those above since that is the bigger problem. The difference in those cases is that we can't delete but have to cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm hard pressed to think of any real place whose depiction in a film or book would be defining; it would have to be extremely insignificant in reality. (I have no problem with fictional places as they are not otherwise defined at all.) Category:James Bond locations is curiously given Category:Fictional locations as a parent. Occuli (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining of the locations. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete. A nice collection of curios trivia, but this category has absolutely no place in the bottom of the Giza Necropolis or the Taj Mahal. East of Borschov 19:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-fictional locations should not be categorized under the fictional heirarchy. And James Bond is not a notable feature of most of these locations (except the stage and Pinewood Studios). 76.66.193.119 (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these locations are not defined by appearing in any of the films, unlike actors who would be. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taking a quick look at a few of the articles it looks like it is covering both fictional locations created for the books or films as well as real locations that appear in the same. That said, the two lists heading the category do a better navigation job than the category itself. Both lists are also what such lists should be - minimal information in the list relying on the articles pointed to to provide expanded information. - J Greb (talk) 01:31, 6 August 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:Energy density[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. Courcelles 06:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A tiny category whose only two legitimate members are now proposed to be merged. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another pointless splinter category by another sock of banned user Mac. The third article in this category Dicyclopentadiene was apparently placed here simply because it has an energy density: as good an example as any of the profoundly misguided nature of so many of Mac's creations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OCAT:Mac. Occuli (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the list was redirected to the main article where the list is more complete and referenced. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Which now brings us down to another main article-only-category from Wikipedia's one-off master, Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 17:57, 4 August 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:Bioalcohols[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. Courcelles 06:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bioalcohols to Category:Alcohol fuels

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another User:Mac confused creation, the entries in the category are about use of various alcohols as fuels, a small but legitimate category. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support None of the articles here are about "bio" fuels, just alcohol fuels that could be -- which is apparently the same in Mac's muddled mind. We do have a subcat Category:Bioethanol which can still reside here -- unless we upmerge it per WP:SMALLCAT, which I'm considering nominating. or maybe not... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dealt with the ethanol categories because it appears that there's no point to bioethanol as a separate category from ethanol fuels. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 17:58, 4 August 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:Samia[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. Courcelles 06:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Samia

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Propose moving the article up to its parent, and deleting this category. Dawynn (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 7 August 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:Attacus[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. Courcelles 06:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Attacus

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Propose moving the article up to its parent, and deleting this category. Dawynn (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 7 August 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:Sphingicampa[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. Courcelles 06:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sphingicampa

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Propose moving the article up to its parent, and deleting this category. Dawynn (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. Beagel (talk) 17:47, 7 August 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:Agliinae[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. Courcelles 06:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Agliinae

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Propose moving the article up to its parent, and deleting this category. Dawynn (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. Beagel (talk) 17:47, 7 August 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:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics[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 Category:Economics.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category seems to exist only to contain the unrelated subcategories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively rename to Category:JEL Q, which seems to be its only reason for existence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there are several other subcats of Category:Economics with names taken from JEL classification codes. If this is the way economists arrange matters, then I don't see the problem. There might be a case for Category:Economics by JEL classification code with some explanatory text. Occuli (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In mathematics, we don't organize categories by AMS/MR subject codes, even though that organization is frequently used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The same issue has come up at least once previously, regarding a category that I brought to CFD myself (sorry, I forget which category it was; it was either renamed or deleted). It too had one of these unwieldy JEL names, which really are not well-suited to our Category structure. Cgingold (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Temporarily) Oppose and Comment - I created this category and used the naming convention of the JEL classification codes, which I realize now probably deviate significantly from Wikipedia's own naming conventions. Personally, I think the category name is a bit too lengthy and redundant myself, but I'm not sure what a "better" name for this category would be. This category does serve a purpose, and as such, I would rather see it renamed than deleted. If anyone can think of any suggestions to get the ball rolling, rather than simply deleting the category outright, I would be happy to hear what you all have to say. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent category, Category:Economics. Categorization by JEL names is likely not useful in the wiki. Using JEL classifications creates category names that are multiple intersections and produce names we generally don't use. Since a Google search on that phrase yielded a total of 56 hits, including this wiki which represents at least 7 or so, this phrase is clearly not in widespread use. Yes, using the JEL code would be an improvement, but is that needed? I think a case would need to be made for using it here when we already have a list article. If this passes, a few other category renames will be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 7 August 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:Declared dead[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:People declared dead in absentia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Declared dead to Category:People who have been declared legally dead

Nominator's rationale: Current category title isn't clear. Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Nice to see a category with a proper heading describing its use, and a comprehensive list of see alsos. I would quibble over legally - it is usually referred to as 'officially'. How about ~~Category:People who have been officially declared dead~~. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking about the "legally" bit after I listed it. Either your suggestion or Category:People who have been declared dead should be fine. Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People declared dead in absentia to match the article Death in absentia. This avoids the kerfuffle about "legally" vs. "officially". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, even better! Rename per Pain Cow. Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pain Cow. This is a good solution. In UK, a decree of presumption of death cannot be obtained for seven years. We may need an intermediate category for people presumed dead. A few in each category subsequently turn up alive and well, but that is the nature of the matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my first suggestion to go along with Pain Cow i.e. Category:People declared dead in absentia. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:59, 2 August 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.

Biographical "date of..." categories, and a broader issue of CfD efficiency[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: seems like discussion has ended. No conclusion was reached here, but a nomination might produce different results.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening this as just a discussion (taking CfD's "D" at face value) instead of a formal CfD action nomination (yet). In re-reading Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 9#Category:Date of birth unknown and related previous CfDs, one side issue which has popped up more than once (and which has contributed significantly to pointless repeated CfD debates) is that, rather than the categories being stupid or useless, editors often simply confuse them with their "year of" sister categories. It strikes me as suddenly clear that if we simply rename them all to "full date of..." instead of "date of..." that this problem just vanishes. I mean, like, "Duh..." Why didn't we do this years ago? My question is whether this is so blindingly obvious that it should be speedied as essentially a typo fix, or actually go through the longer CfD process, which seems unnecessarily tedious for something this dirt-simple. This is a sideways way of saying that I think a rather large number of things filed as full-on CfDs should be speedied as typo/grammar/brainfart/fits-clear-precedent corrections. (Long-term CfD watchers will note that I semi-often comment that various CfDs ought to be speedied on such grounds, because a great deal of CfD is wasted time and energy on things that will obviously snowball for unopposed correction before they're even filed as CfDs). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would definitely support this particular change, I would not agree with you on the issue of Speedy Renaming. The reason is very simple: Speedy Renaming can ONLY function properly if all such changes are made according a specified set of clearly-delineated rules. Since all exceptions to those rules are, by definition, exceptions to the rules, there is literallly no way to determine which ought to qualify without taking them to full CFD -- thus closing the circle. Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as often, Cgingold has said what I would have said, were I sufficiently articulate and had the time. "Full date of..." does seem a good idea. Occuli (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Changing the name may wind up with a different point of confusion. Right now "Date of birth unknown" is replaced by a year category if/when the year is found and added to the article. If the name is changed, it would be fair to argue that the "unknown" category would be retained until the month and day is also found. Given the usage, "Year of birth unknown" may be a better choice. - J Greb (talk) 01:17, 6 August 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:Drinking songs[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: split. Somehow or other, and if you do the work you get to decide how. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a conflation of two types of drinking songs: the kind that falls under "folk song sung while libating" and "song about drinking." I hardly think that "Two Piña Coladas" falls under the same category as "In Heaven There Is No Beer." Given the ambiguous name and obvious conflation, either split into "drinking songs" and "songs about drinking" or delete outright. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Previous discussion (almost 3 years ago now). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the latter sort to "Category:Songs about drinking" and differentiate the categories clearly with {{Notice}} (Use "about drinking" because "about alcohol" is unnecessarily clinical and certainly non-intuitive such that no one guessing at a potential category name is every likely to pick that). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split, carefully. Then sing a drinking song. East of Borschov 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote the article, A drinking song is a song sung while drinking alcohol, rather subjective. So if some locality has a favorite diddy, it would qualify. Likewise every school fight song would need to be included. Every song used to show support for a soccer team would need including. So sourcing would be required. The previous decision said to clean, as we know that does not work with categories. So have a drink to its passing and just use the uncited list in the article for future navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. -- Europe22 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split into Category:Drinking songs and Category:Songs about alcohol. "Songs about drinking" is too close to "drinking songs," and so there will likely be a lot of double categorization. Better to make the other one different.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian. As the article states, Most drinking songs are folk songs, and may be varied from person to person and region to region, in both the lyrics and in the music. Basically, what one editor thinks is a drinking song, another thinks it's not, leading to subjective categorization. What if a journalist publishes an article considered reliable source cites "Like a Virgin" by Madonna as a drinking song, does that automatically make it one? I sure hope not. Category:Songs about alcohol would just lead to Category:Songs about smoking, Category:Songs about crack cocaine, Category:Songs about heroin; these songs do exist and share that trait, but I'd hardly call them defining characteristics. To be honest, several of the categories in Category:Songs by theme border trivial categorization, if not the entire tree. In fact, a nice list would probably perform a much better job than the category ever could. — ξ ^xplicit 21:39, 24 August 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:Universal healthcare[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus; suggest broader nomination of health care categories to resolve this spelling issue. (Personally, I don't think it's a UK/US difference—rather, the health care industry has historically been active in rebranding "health care" as "healthcare". Most dictionaries still only have "health care".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Universal healthcare to Category:Universal health care

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename: This is just a typo fix, one of the main speedy criteria. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not a typo. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not nominated as a typo. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please review Category:Healthcare and its various subcat trees named 'healthcare'. Should all the cats be named 'healthcare' or all named 'health care'? What sense does the current mix make? Is there a reason? Until there is sense, there should be no rename. Hmains (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- US/UK spelling? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 1 August 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:Screenshots of Mac software[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 and purge. All of these are by OS, not company. I've moved a few into a new Category:Screenshots of iPhone OS software, though more are probably movable.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Screenshots of Mac software to Category:Screenshots of Apple Inc. software

Nominator's rationale: Since iPhone OS/iOS screenshots are also included in this category, the target name will more accurately represent the content of the category. Airplaneman ✈ 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as unnecessary (i.e. out-of-process). Just put the iOS & iPhone stuff into their own categories (or category, if there's no real difference – I'm not following iOS, so I don't know the deets), and put those and the Mac category into a new Category:Screenshots of Apple Inc. software (or just Category:Screenshots of Apple software, since the "Inc." isn't really needed - neither fruit nor Apple Records (or other "Apple" companies) are notable as software producers). Nothing needs to be renamed (except perhaps Category:Apple Inc. software to Category:Apple software; who would seriously think that software could come from pommes?). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:57, 30 July 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.