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. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It's a little bit hard to believe that this category has not been renamed yet. Back in 2005 and 2006 there was consensus that this category should be named as it is to disambiguate and match the main article, but now the main article is at Iraq War and 2003 Iraq conflict redirects there. The subcategories have now started to use "Iraq War" in the names. If we still want to disambiguate from other usages (Iraq war (disambiguation)), then perhaps Category:Iraq War (2003–present) would work. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Long overdue, as Good Ol’factory has pointed out. Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, having the category "2003 Iraq conflict" is a bit like saying "Mission Accomplished". --Soman (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There was an "Iraq war 2003" and it did end, when the Iraqi military forces were defeated or dispersed. Subsequently, we have had an "Iraq conflict 2003 on" dealing with a nationalist insurgency against foreign occupying forces. These are potentially separate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Every subcategory seems to have already been renamed to "Iraq War". Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 25 June 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:Self withdrawal: canvassing concerns combined with new information that this scheme goes far beyond the local English teams.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge each/listify if necessary. In the past we have agreed not to categorize association football players by captainship of a particular team due to concerns of overcategorization. I propose that the same concerns exist for categories that categorize captains of other team sports. These are some cricket ones. These could be good "listify" candidates. Some of them are already listified in a separate article and some are only listified in the text of the category. The ones without a separate article should be listified. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cricket captains have a specific role within the game, far more clearly delineated than in association football, and the captaincy of a cricket team is often an honour much prized by ordinary cricketers. Captains direct the team on the field of play far more clearly than in soccer, and are the focus of tactics throughout the game and beyond. They choose who should bowl and when and who should bat and when. Many cricket captains held the post for years and their captaincy was a material part of their contribution to the game. The captaincy succession for major cricket is itself a source of interest. Johnlp (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are cricket captains of international teams categorized or is it just these local English teams? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
International teams as well. And these aren't just "local" English teams: this is the top level of the sport in the UK, with a structure that goes back a century and a half. I've raised this at WT:CRIC. Suggest you take it there if you really wish to pursue this. Johnlp (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood my question. Are cricket captains of international teams categorized on Wikipedia, or are the only teams that have categorized captains on WP the domestic/local English teams? This is the proper forum to pursue a category merge proposal, not at a Wikiproject. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on canvassing (nom). In my view, this invitation at WP:CRICKET was inappropriate canvassing, since the editor states that "I've already been in to oppose" and then adds, "Perhaps others might care to join me." Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd was going to join Johnlp in opposing, but I'm an active member of WP:CRIC, I'm now not sure. To answer your question, international teams are categorized too. For example: Category:English cricket captains (to which lists are also available, as can be seen by this move request). The full extend of the categories is at Category:Cricket captains. There is some formatting and rationalisation along these lines (they should be Foo cricket captains, not Fooian cricket captains - for reasons stated in the aforementioned move request and elsewhere, chiefly that you do not have to have that nationality to play for and captain a particular country) still to be done with these. At the close of this discussion, if the categories remain, I will make sure that move requests are actioned to correctly address this issue regarding the categories.
What you would be better off asking, in my opinion, is do domestic cricket clubs outside of England have captain categories. A quick check indicates the Australia does not, neither does India or South Africa. In fact, if England is the only country to do so, I would tend to agree that they could well be unnecessary and a list will do just fine.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response—yes, that information is helpful and I would appreciate any follow up help you could provide. If not all cricket teams even have captains, that also makes me wonder why it's important enough to categorize English cricketers by. But in light of the new information and the tainting by the canvassing, I think it's best if this nomination be withdrawn for now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:33, 16 June 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:rename. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the main article. However, this is another one that may need donning of your thinking caps. If you look at Subterranea, this almost looks like a made up term and the article is just a list. I think the better alternative would be to rename to Category:Underground buildings and structures which would be rather clear and precise. Along with this, the article could also be renamed for clarity. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. When I think of the word "subterranea" (when not thinking of the Marvel comics region), I think of caves, not structures.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:58, 16 June 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.
Rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel(talk) 03:40, 16 June 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:keep, with no prejudice on further activity. I agree that this category has some odd contents, but it's a top-level category, and thus needs a general name. If editors want to move things out, split the category, restrict the scope, or create subcategories, go to it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename Do something. I'm not sure that the contents here are really all correctly classified or if a split or rename is needed. Many items here are really sources of power. So opening a discussion to see what alternatives exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not in favor of deleting or renaming such a fundamental category. You don't see the usefulness in a category for "energy?!" If the contents need to be moved to more specific subcategories then do it. Don't destroy the organization that has already been created. Greg Bard 21:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did say split. I'm not suggesting deletion either. Subcategories are fine, but I'm not sure of a good direction. The CfD templates are limited, and the rename one was clearly better to use then the delete one. At this point it is a discussion and no specific proposal on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator has not proposed to delete anything. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this really is a mixed up category isn't it? Some categories, like "net metering", seem related to "energy use", others like "alternative energy" and "energy organizations" more to "energy sources" or "energy production". Perhaps "sources" should be a subcat of "production"? A subcategory of "energy use" can mop up instances related to e.g. the way energy is used in the home. This way we can try to keep "physics of energy" and "human use/production/sources of energy" separated in a reasonable way? TheGrappler (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your split proposal is along sensible lines. If you look at the category, the ambiguous introduction of This is the top-level category for categories relating to energy in science, technology and society. does not help any. This fosters inclusion of many areas without regard to a sensible organization. One of my first thoughts was to restrict this to only topics on Energy as a physical quantity which is the focus of one of the main articles. Which gets back to another issue with the instruction and that is The main article for this category is Energy and Energy and society. Energy is ambiguous and on top of that we have two many topics. This sets the stage for a catch all category. One solution would be to change Category:Energy into a parent category with only a handful of subcategories. Obviously one of these would be Category:Energy (physical quantity) and some others, maybe Category:Energy and society. That would address the problem of multiple main articles and unfocused inclusion criteria. That would not address where parent categories like Category:Energy (technology) would go. So I'm unclear as to a sound approach for now. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no, I'm afraid that certainly won't work. The problem here isn't that we have lots of articles on different physical types of energy (e.g. kinetic, electromagnetic), but that a lot of topics have been conflated - from energy as a physical quantity, to energy use in the home. TheGrappler (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, energy use in the home is energy as a physical quantity... its "electromagnetic energy" under this category scheme. I don't know why you say it "certainly" won't work. It seems to me the exact proper way to categorize energy, as supported by the article itself (always a good place to look for clues for categorization).Greg Bard 20:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point (badly made!) was that the conflation is essentially between two topics, as this nomination makes clear: "the physics of energy" and "energy and society". If you look at the energy article, it may suggest to you that the category should be split on physical grounds. But this is also deemed our main category for energy and society, which is where it gets more complicated. If you have a look around what is currently kept in the category, splitting it purely on laws-of-physics grounds would face several big problems - I think the more you explore the category, the harder the task appears! Things like cogeneration and energy conservation are certainly not just about "electromagnetic energy". The way society generates and uses energy, and its effect on the economy, the environment etc. are complex issues that cut across multiple physical categories of energy. Under your proposal, a reader would be expected to get from Category:Energy to Category:Energy companies via Category:Electromagnetic energy, which is both non-intuitive (especially given the way that the word "energy" is used in normal English, outside of physics textbooks) and too reductionist (e.g. for a company producing combined heat and power). TheGrappler (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a sense in which things like cogeneration and energy conservationare just about "electromagnetic energy" (I suppose cogeneration should also be under "thermal"). There is nothing wrong with having an "Energy and society" category, however, that will be under the general "energy" cat because society has ways of dealing with all the forms of energy. I don't really see a problem with that. I am pretty sure energy companies are not limited to electromagnetic energy, and therefore should just be under the more general "energy" cat, or the "energy and society" cat if one is created. Greg Bard 00:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure "energy conservation" really belongs just under "electromagnetic energy"? Again, much of energy conservation is to do with conserving thermal energy. I think you're thinking about the topic while wearing a physicist's or engineer's cap, which one the one hand seems sensible, but (a) if you delve around and explore the category, it really is a hodge-podge of all kinds of stuff, some of which it's not easy to split on physical grounds alone, and (b) I'm not convinced that it would be an intuitive way for a reader (especially a schoolkid who hasn't dealt with much of the physics of energy) to navigate. If we do split off a subcategory for "energy and society", do you think that the bulk of the energy category should be split into something like "physics of energy" or "forms of energy", which is then broken down into the types you described? TheGrappler (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but splitting it might well be worthwhile. Nevertheless, we will still need this as a parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think anyone is really proposing to delete :) And I think you're right, it wouldn't work as a disambiguation category between "energy and society" and "energy (physics)" which would be trying too hard to cleave the separate aspects of this category apart. But I do think there should be very few articles directly in this category, because of its ambiguities, so a good way of splitting it would be helpful. TheGrappler (talk) 00:21, 21 June 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:rename. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- another very fundamental category. I don't think this is ambiguous at all. When you are able to use your energy, you have power. That is true in politics and physics. It is the same concept. There is no down side to categorizing these things this way. Greg Bard 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category names generally follow the article name. Power is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This seems like an obvious change to make for the sake of disambiguation. I'm not a big fan of the view that we should have categories like this to house all other subcategories that refer to types of "power". That's specifically what disambiguation categories are for. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to reflect parent article. (Also, a single top-level grouping of all things 'powerful' -- human, political and otherwise -- might be a case of just WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES?). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 16 June 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. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Unlike the more clearly defined Category:Independent politicians in the United States, this appears mainly to be a category for hosts who like to trumpet their "independent" nature (including Glenn Beck, whose distance from the Republican party is, you know, vast) A huge cross section of America is formally unaffiliated, voting for either party: this is a category for pundits who just make it part of their branding. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename -- This category has potential for a lot of problems. I think we should conspicuously distinguish people who are Decline to state voters from the so-called "American Independent Party." People who call themselves "independent" do not need a category. We are all "independent" is one way or another.Greg Bard 21:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Greg said, but leaning towards delete. TheGrappler (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename this category could be useful if we got a whole lot more examples. We have categories for the members of every noticeable political party in the United States, Democrats, Republicans, multiple third parties, and even monarchists. Shawn has a point that it's just become a category for pundits who would, you know, fit into the Republican category but make being a 'populist'-faux populist-Fox populist their brand, like Beck, Dobbs, O'Reilly, Savage, et. al. It presents a problem, but I think someone needs to find more examples that fit in this category, which should get you some actual independents since they're a third of the population, give or take. Also, we could put Nader in the Independent politicians category, since he's a pereneniall candidate. J390 (talk 04:41, 19 June 2010
But independents aren't a "noticeable political party in the United States" - so membership is subjective. A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party, a Republican is a member of the Republican Party, how do you define an "independent"? What we really could do with is a tight definition, and I haven't seen a workable one so far. What, for you, is an "actual" independent? TheGrappler (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Independent" just means not a registered D or R, which is trivial. We don't categorize by what people are not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:17, 24 June 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 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: Another from banned User:Mac, now alleged to be operating as both Nopetro and Nudecline, Category:Mineral photovoltaics is defined simply as "Inorganic photovoltaics." Virtually all solar cells are inorganic and manufactured using minerals (its approximate counterpart, Category:Organic semiconductors is much a more useful, populated and defining category). Tellingly, a Google search for the term "Mineral photovoltaics" reveals Wiki pages and mirrors only. This is a made up term by Mac with little or no real-world use. Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minerals can be made from organics. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 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: This is very much the odd one out in Category:Architecture by country and a change would make it far more consistent and predictable. (Though I can see a preference for naming things this way round, it ought to be consistent, and this isn't!) TheGrappler (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC) TheGrappler (talk) 14:05, 15 June 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:rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would be consistent with the comparable Category:Germany and the Antarctic and Category:New Zealand and the Antarctic and also makes a good deal more sense since Bulgaria does not have territorial claims in the Antarctic - it's not like there are parts of Bulgaria that are actually "in" the Antarctic (contrast this to France, where some Antarctic territories are actually integral parts of France). TheGrappler (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) TheGrappler (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – how does this compare with Bulgarian toponyms in Antarctica? Is this not categorisation by an incidental property of the name of the place rather than something intrinsic? If kept, rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the Bulgarian toponyms are areas that were explored by Bulgaria, not something coincidental. However I think that a lot of things currently in the "Bulgaria in Antarctica" category should be removed from it. I am trying to think of a suitable way to categorize "New Swabia" similarly - actually "German toponyms in Antarctica" as a subcategory of "Germany and the Antarctic" would seem sensible. TheGrappler (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Being the author I wouldn't object to renaming this category as proposed, following the relevant German and New Zealand examples. Apcbg (talk) 20:12, 15 June 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 in one direction or the other - no need to have both of these categories. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia it should be properly named, which means it should include "Wikipedia" in its naming. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:40, 19 June 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: I suppose this category has some possible uses, though it doesn't seem to be in much use at the moment. I don't think if it's kept it should remain in its current location in main category space (indeed in Category:Germany) or that it's a good idea for it to contain the actual articles rather than article talk pages. I am open to deletion, renaming, or rescoping really - but it is clearly a category that merits wider community discussion. TheGrappler (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC) TheGrappler (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the author I don't have strong feelings about this. The category is automatically inserted by Template:Lesenswert which generates the 'tag' you can see on the template page. We can take it out. On the other hand it may be a useful admin category to enable translators to identify and work on articles that are rated as 'good' on de.wiki and bring them up to an equivalent standard on en.wiki. So perhaps someone could transfer this into a suitable admin category area and I could start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany to determine whether it has utility and what its relationship to {{Link GA|de}} should be. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:16, 15 June 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:rename all as nominated. — ξxplicit 07:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. More of these. There are a bunch more out there, any of which might have reasons not to rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that proposal. We know when a place was established, but maybe not when it was first settled. How many settlements in Europe were first settled before we kept records of the establishment of settlements? Do we know for a fact that no one was living in the area that makes up London prior to the first century? I think your proposed name implies that we know this for a fact. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I don't want to go the route Peterkingiron suggests, since these are just the last two of hundreds of "Settlements established in (date)" that were all renamed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as implementation of "populated places" compromise, which has been widely applied now. I don't think we should switch to "Places first settled in XXX" for the reasons Vegaswikian says. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:13, 24 June 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:rename all. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose standardizing the name of this province to match the main article Mpumalanga. There are other categories that already use just "Mpumalanga" rather than "Mpumalanga Province". The final two categories are included to adhere them to the more standard naming format for things geographical. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, as the way that the name is commonly used in South African English. - htonl (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. I don't see a disambiguation use by adding "province". Dimadick (talk) 06:07, 25 June 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:rename all. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose standardizing the name of this province to match the main article Limpopo. There are other categories that already use just "Limpopo" rather than "Limpopo Province". The final two categories are included to adhere them to the more standard naming format for things geographical. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 03:44, 16 June 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:rename. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article and remove ambiguity.--Lenticel(talk) 03:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As you say, the current name is ambiguous. - htonl (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. With locations in Australia, Canada and the United States having the same name, it won't be surprising if the wrong articles end up in the category. Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 25 June 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:rename all. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose standardizing the name of this province to match the main article KwaZulu-Natal. There are other categories that already use just "KwaZulu-Natal" rather than "KwaZulu-Natal Province". The final two categories are included to adhere them to the more standard naming format for things geographical. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, as the way that the name is commonly used in South African English. - htonl (talk) 07:27, 18 June 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:rename all. — ξxplicit 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose standardizing the name of this province to match the main article Gauteng. There are other categories that already use just "Gauteng" rather than "Gauteng Province". The final two categories are included to adhere them to the more standard naming format for things geographical. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, as the way that the name is commonly used in South African English. - htonl (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. No disambiguation use here. Dimadick (talk) 06:14, 25 June 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 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 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: The current title is ambiguous since it fails to specify the sport (association football) and the country (Germany). The proposed title follows from the title of the parent category, Category:Germany football league templates. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: As the creator, yes go for it, makes sense. Calistemon (talk) 01:03, 16 June 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:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles[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 category and all the pages contained I think the pages themselves violate WP policy on not naming articles using nonlatin characters. i think this represents an unusual precedent for expanding the english WP to include non-english, non-latin characters. i think the articles themselves should be either rewritten where possible, or deleted, and this category deleted. I cannot find any prior discussions explaining this cat, but would of course welcome any info on existing consensus. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - they are disambiguation pages not full articles, so the fact the titles are nonlatin is not a big deal. The argument for keeping them runs basically as follows: 1) if I come across a term with Chinese characters, I want to be able to copy and paste it into the WP search box and get to the right article (I know WP is not a dictionary, but cultural terms like 关系 need an article not just a dictionary entry to explain, and for place and people e.g. 北京 or 毛泽东 an encyclopedia is the right place to look them up!). 2) What happens if the Chinese characters are ambiguous? Then they need disambiguating. Unfortunately this can't be done in a page with Latin characters as the title, since the symbols may have different transliterations. 西山 is an excellent example of that - attempting to transliterate before looking up in WP, or putting the disambiguation page at a different title, would just make the reader do harder work. I find these pages very useful, and they don't seem to breach any core policy or guidelines, nor can I see an easy way of replacing their functionality. TheGrappler (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there has certainly been a long argument somewhere (DRV probably ... here) about an admin who was unilaterally deleting all redirects in Chinese characters, after which the redirects were restored. The case for disambiguation pages is at first sight weaker, as a disamb page is closer to an article than is a redirect, but TheGrappler makes perfectly good points. Occuli (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep we have WP:CJKV for such pages. The Chinese characters are original language names of the subjects, and those names are ambiguous because of different usages over time and in different countries and languages. Since we generally redirect from the original language name, it follows that ambiguous names would get dabified. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that helps, to know there is a group working on this. shouldnt there be a lot more of these types of disambig pages? of course, weve got to start somewhere. Im still not convinced this type of disambig page fits here, but i understand the arguments here for keep have validity. i wont withdraw, but i will fully respect the decision. And i guess we wouldnt have such pages for any other nonlatin writing systems, as most others are alphabetic and not ideographic (or whatever the term is for the hybrid system of chinese characters), so they wouldnt need this type of disambiguation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, so I would think that Cyrillic disambiguation pages would also exist. As well as the issue of usage of any term can change through time, so those would need dab pages. Any non-English language can be expected to have several anglicization schemes (romanization schemes, if it does not use a latin-derived alphabet), where the common name in English may vary for a single spelling in that non-English language. Anglicized names occur even with latin-derived alphabetic languages. (ie. Munich and Mu:nchen (and various encoding methods for diacritics using ASCII standard characters as well...) ) 70.29.212.131 (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrillic can be transliterated (pretty consistently between languages using Cyrillic, fortunately). We do have Cyrillic alphabet redirects (e.e. Москва) and I suppose in some instances we might want to redirect we could be held back by ambiguity - but we could always redirect to the transliterated disambiguation page, rather than have a disambiguation page at the non-latin location. As HongQiGong explains below, this is not possible with Chinese characters. TheGrappler (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that consistent with Cyrillic, being "Romanoff"/"Romanov" ; "Smirnoff"/"Smirnov" ; "Pulkowa"/"Pulkovo" ; that's just Russian. There's the Russian Ukrainian divide that seems to occupy Talk:Kiev - "Kiev"/"Kyiv" ; etc. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for "non-Latin characters", these aren't articles, and I fail to see why non-English characters are allowed on article titles anyways, it seems like English Wikipedia is some European name dumping ground, instead of using English-language titles, some weird obscure European spelling is used instead, filled with thorns and eszetts and d-bars and diacritics that a monoglot anglophone would never even recognize, let alone use. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with TheGrappler. We should not overlook the possibility that people who have come across terms written in Chinese characters (and with diacritics – so I disagree to this extent with 70.29.212.131) may wish to find corresponding English Wikipedia articles if they exist. Also, people learning English may want to find articles that they do not yet know the English names of. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 05:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I am not currently active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force, for which the category was created. I understand the nominator's concern, but as others have noted, the intention is to maintain redirect or disambig pages with Chinese character titles. And to give it a little bit of context, one of the main drive for this effort is the fact that a Chinese-character term could mean different things in multiple spoken languages, or essentially the same things in spoken languages, but pronounced differently. Also, a Chinese-character term could mean one specific thing across different languages, but if it is pronounced differently in multiple languages, it would prove (and had proven) challenging in article naming that is romanised for English. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 16 June 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 July 7#Category:Good articles on German Wikipedia. — ξxplicit 07:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)