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:Speedy close We have a CSD for empty categories. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't follow the normal naming convention (Brazilian Plays) and is an empty category. Clubmarx (talk) 23:27, 6 March 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 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty and unneeded category — TAnthonyTalk 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Category:The Tudors character redirects to lists already performs the same function, but is more accurate, as its contents are all redirects and there are no actual individual character articles.— TAnthonyTalk 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty. Did you see that the CFD notice on the category page says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress"??? The category is empty because you emptied it after making this nomination, in a series of edits like this one. Please restore the contents category so that editors discussing it can view the contents. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, I definitely emptied it first, the subsequent edits I made to the related items were sorting, etc. Anyway, all the items are redirects already tagged into Category:The Tudors character redirects to lists, there are no actual character articles.— TAnthonyTalk 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I checked again, and the emptying was indeed done beforehand. However, emptying a category before nominating it isn't that much better, because you still asked people to decide on a category whose contents they couldn't see, and you described it as "empty" rather than as "I just emptied it". Please repopulate Category:The Tudors characters so that editors can see what they are discussing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clerical matter, these are all redirects already tagged into the basically identical category Category:The Tudors character redirects to lists (there are only redirects, no actual articles). And to clarify, because I don't think some of my edit summaries were clear, my edits like the one you cite above were to duplicate, alternately-disambiguated redirects (Charles Brandon (The Tudors character) vs. Charles Brandon (The Tudors)) and obviously both should not show up in the category. Thx.— TAnthonyTalk 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the categories are duplicates, then the solution is to open a merger nomination. Mergeing first and then bringing a deletion CFD is still asking editors to rubber-stamp a done-deal. --12:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Indeed this category is unnecessary as only the list of characters article would fit there. (For anyone who's interested, here's what the category used to look like.) However, I disagree with the removal of the duplicate redirects from Category:The Tudors character redirects to lists. Since that category is for project administration purposes, then I would expect all relevant redirects to be placed into it. Also, is there a reason why the redirect category was placed into a content category? That does not normally happen. Sarilox (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I absolutely agree with BHG, but this is bound to suffer the same fate as the cat for Shakespeare characters. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 12 March 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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I'd like to make the case that this is WP:OC. Virtually every narrative that has a protagonist has an antagonist of some kind. But the fact that in many films, the "villain" is a thief is not a defining characteristic, imo. For proof, I direct you to the six films added to the category since its creation in September: a mix of true crime films with kid comedies like Home Alone that are more properly categorized as such. In nominating this I admit I'm also reacting to the fact that I think there have been too many films by topic sub-categories (this was mis-categorized under "films by genre") and the awkward name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I agree with the nominator: this is undefining, and the category should be deleted. However, the whole "films by topic" genre is fatally flawed, because fictional works often not not about what they are about; they use various forms of imagery to convey and idea by setting a story in a particular time and place. I would happily say "delete" this category, but I don't see that it's much worse than the rest of the cruddy categories which fill Category:Films by topic, so I reluctantly have to stay neutral. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This a trivial category which does not seem useful; who would ever want to look up films by this topic?— TAnthonyTalk 19:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, would the Home Alone movies still belong here? They are surely "about" an abandoned boy, not the thieves, who are secondary characters. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't understand why we would want to categorize films by the occupation of the protagonist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the category itself is trivial and can lead to pointless "Films with hunchback henchmen" things. --LoЯd۞pεth 04:47, 10 March 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 all. The software used to create an image is not a defining characteristic of it, and it is of no use either to readers or editors. (An editor wanting to modify the file is not tied to using the same softeware as the craetor, because the images uploaded to wikipedia are either in open formats or in formats supported by a wide variety of software). I see no encyclopedic purpose in categorising images by the software tools used to create them. For most types of image, a wide choice of software may be used to achieve particular effects, and if we start categorising images in this we will logically create a huge set of categories which intersect with and divide the substantive categories. Two similar categories were deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Created_with_Illustrator. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.— TAnthonyTalk 19:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete. Speaking only for the category that I have used "Created with Mathematica"-- images created by programming languages, often have source code in the comments (I do at least), or the author can be contacted for source code. This allows subsequent readers or editors to recreate, modify, improve etc on the image without creating from scratch. This is only useful if it is easy to identify the source language. JonMcLoone (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! That sounds like a non-trivial reason for the category, but it's useful only if the source code is actually in the comments. I'd be happy to keep the Mathematica category if it was renamed to something like Category:Images created with Mathematica with source code included, and purged of any images which don't have code included. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a better name. If you are happy to create and populate the new category rather than purging this one, then we can just delete. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except GIMP. Keep Inkscape because SVG readers can have problems with files created by specific editors, and because its wide use on hundreds of images suggests many editors find it useful. Why should our judgement supercede theirs? Creation of a "with source code" variant of the Mathematica category is a nice idea, although I would have thought most images here (all except the spikey logo?) should be transwikied over to Commons, so perhaps it should be done there instead. It can be very useful to know what language was to create an image, even without source code, so I don't agree with deletion of the non-source-code version. (I have more experience with R graphics than Mathematica, but I believe the same general conclusions apply.) Raster image editors are more generic than SVG editors or programming languages, and the GIMP category is only used for one image, so I lean towards deleting that (although I note that the corresponding Commons category has hundreds of members). -- Avenue (talk) 20:47, 13 March 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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The category contains one user (who should be in a user category if anywhere) and Harrison Ford whose article makes his religion explicitly ambiguous. Like many Americans, he is of mixed ethnic ancestry, so that I doubt an ethnic or religious category is useful. I judge this only on the article. I would suggest he should be in Americans of Jewish descent and Americans of Irish descent, and possibly a few more. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment, with only the above stated members, I agree with Peterkingiron to delete. ----
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 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am adding this, since no one else has yet commented and they need to be consistent. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to "borough" for consistency: the district has the status of a borough, but without the disambiguator, it is ambiguous. The borough has adopted the name of the meadow where Magna Carta was agreed, so that the present category name should properly refer to that very small place. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 8 March 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 23:04, 14 March 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: Official name of the club has changed. See [1]. Rettetast (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:30, 8 March 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:Riparian boroughs of the River Thames[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:Rename. Not all members of the category are boroughs (City of London, South Bucks). I can find a variety of definitions of riparian and terms such as "riparian borough" and "riparian district" have been used to denote specific sets of districts. The renaming will remove any doubt about the contents of the category. MRSC (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Riparian is a useful term which emphasises that they are on the river. Riparian authorities are referred to as such in many contexts and boroughs is broad enough to cover them (City of Westminster?). "Local government districts" - how boring and bureaucratic. Categories are set up by editors with an interest in the subject and wouldn't exist otherwise - so why do other people come along and want to rename them - usually with something longer and more tedious to handle? Motmit (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are of course riparian boroughs on other rivers and canals, and as for London, there is a super category of Riparian boroughs of London which includes those on the Lea and Wandle. If you want to be pedantic about names then the City of Westminster should not be in the category of London Boroughs but that is not the point - the word borough applies to a level of local government that has responsibilities. And it doesn't help to pile in higher and lower levels for the sake of it. Motmit (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motmit, I dunno what you mean by "pile in higher and lower levels for the sake of it". The category already includes several local govt districts: Dartford, Elmbridge, Gravesham, South Bucks. South Bucks is one of several non-borough district councils, so we have two options: either rename to reflect the actual scope, or remove all the non-borough councils from the category. I think that the category will be more use of readers if it includes all the councils which adjoin the Thames ... but would you prefer it to be restricted only those districts which have borough status? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, Rename to Category:Local authorities adjoining the River Thames. However most will have little responsibility for managing the river, which is probably the responsibility of the Environment Acgency above Teddington Lock and the Port of London Authority below it, making this a relatively trivial category, which might accordingly be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created for a purpose which is that a particular editor made a complete mess of one of the Thames articles, and one of the problems seemed to be that he/she did not know what the adjacent boroughs were. (Counties are not such a problem) This will hopefully help me sort out the mess and will be indispensible for a number of other Thames articles that need improving. Responsibility for managing the river itself is down to the EA and PLA - no "probably" about it if you know the subject you are talking about, but that is not what this category is about. If you google you will find countless references to Riparian boroughs particularly from those in this category that proudly identify themselves as such and for a purpose. You will find references to Riparian Boroughs in Hansard for both houses of parliament. One of the best bits of writing I have seen on Wikipedia is currently on the Cricket Project talk page with reference to the completely "broken and useless" state of the Category system thanks to the participants in this CFD process.Motmit (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a clearer rename than my suggestion, so if kept then I'd support that. But I think Peter is right about the triviality, so I have no objection to deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone is accusing you of coining a neologism, but I don't see why this obscure term is needed. WP:MOS#Clarity says "Plain English works best: avoid jargon, vague phrases, and unnecessary complexity". A search throws up only 335 non-wikiedia hits for "riparian boroughs", which is not quite the "countless" references you talk of. As for Hansard, there are only 9 uses of "riparian boroughs" on the Parliament website, compared with 42 for transubstantiation
Your abuse of participants in the CFD process might be a better justified if you had paid a tried to assume good faith and paid a little more attention to the concerns raised, rather than sneering at them as "boring and bureaucratic". (Not all local govt districts are boroughs, and some boroughs are not local govt districts; the two terms have precise meanings which overlap but are not synonymous).
You mention "Riparian boroughs" which "proudly identify themselves as such", so I did some searching, and far from being a public proclamation, it's a term which seemed to be used by UK local authorities only in internal documents. If I have missed any evidence of "Riparian boroughs" which "proudly identify themselves as such", please supply some links.
Also, while the term is used to refer to boroughs adjoining other rivers, so far all the results which I have checked of a search for "riparian boroughs" thames -wikipedia refer to London boroughs. Have you any evidence of the term being used to include all local authorities on The Thames, including those which are not actually boroughs? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - there doesn't seem to be a particularly good reason to rename or delete, and a bit of regional diversity doesn't go astray on this thing, especially when those likely to know what it means will find it useful. We in Australia use "local government areas" or LGAs as that is the term universally used in our legislation across a number of jurisdictions and we have no history of using anything else (hell, there were practically none prior to 1870 or so), but the London area has history going back hundreds of years. Orderinchaos 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So being both inaccurate and unnecessarily obscure are not good reasons?
Delete or keep—whatever—but get rid of this "riparian" business. Categories shouldn't sound as if they were named by Wm F. Buckley Jr. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you all please leave me to get on with the simple business of improving articles relating to those local authorities in South East England that are situated on the banks of the River Thames. There are important matters such as fluvial flooding and floodplane management that need to be reflected in the articles and it is also valuable to identify the tributaries, crossings, islands, locks and riverside settlements that fall within the districts and boroughs. I cannot see a simpler way of doing it than by having the specific category which I set up. I see the name as perfectly adequate and it employs a useful term that states its precise significance for this purpose (which is to do with being on the banks of a river). It is annoying that someone has seen fit to lob it into this forum, without having the courtesy to discuss it with me first. It strikes me as odd that those who care so little about the category that they consider it trivial or would happily see it deleted are also so hung up finding different names for it. All I want to do is improve an encyclopedia without unnecessary interference. Can someone just close as "Keep" - it is really not big deal? Thank you Motmit (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposals here are to rename the category to a name which more accurately and clearly describes its contents. You can continue to improve the articles even if the category is deleted (which I hope it will not be) or re-named to something bizarre and obscure, and I hope that you will continue that good work. The hostility of your responses here do not suggest that a pre-CFD discussion with you would have been a fruitful exercise, and your latest response carries an unfortunate implication of WP:OWNership. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 15 March 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 being misused as a subcategory of Category:Reality television series by country instead of creating appropriate subcategories by individual African country; South Africa already had its own subcategory anyway. After moving the ones that belonged in the South African category instead and removing the ones that didn't belong in a "reality television series" category at all, the category's now down to just one article — and that can go into Category:Reality television series or Category:Nigerian reality television series. Unless there's some weird new consensus to start categorizing television series by continent instead of individual country, delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 6 March 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. Categories appear to be duplicates; they share the same main article Serbs of Croatia. Suggest merging to the name that is somewhat clearer and the one that matches the main article name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The current contents may be duplicated, but the concepts are different. I suggest seeking input from the relevant WikiProjects. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great care needed -- The Serbian and Croat languages are essetnially the same, but one is written in Cyrillic characters and the other in Roman ones. In this part of the world ethnicity is important and complicated. We are still too close to the time fo the civil wars of the 1990s. Serbo-Croats could be used as a generic term for any speaker of the language, though in the aftermath of the war, this is unlikely to be a preferred term for a Serb, a Croat, a Bosnian or a Montenegrin. Manually emptyCategory:Serbo-Croatsafter CFD closure, by distributing contents to better categories as far as possible; then delete if empty. Checking sample items produced a WWII resistence fighter (better as Yugoslav); a Serbian actor living in Zagreb (a Serb of Croatia); a Serbian general (Serb); and a 19th-century activist in Dalmatia (People from Dalmatia). Oppose plain merger as leading to miscategorisation. Whoever made Serbs of Croatia the main article for Category:Serbo-Croats failed to understand the nature of the category. As I understand it, to be Croat is to be Catholic and to be Serb is to be Orthodox. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Peterkingiron for the most part. It is a little more complicated - many (esp younger) Serbs write their own language in Latin characters - when I was in Beograd it seemed to be accepted as a sadly inevitable state of affairs by people I spoke to. But Serbo-Croat is not a nationality but a language - it should be carefully dissected with the entries being placed into the right category. Agreed with the unknown opposer that a WikiProject in the area should be approached. Orderinchaos 18:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Johnbod's findings, willing to go with a merge as the name is simply wrong for what it purports to be. Orderinchaos 07:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Some great theories about what this category should be have been posited, but the fact remains that since it was created, the category has been defined as including "articles on Croatian individuals who are of Serbian heritage. This includes both native born Croats of Serb/Serbian heritage as well as individuals who have emigrated from Serbia to Croatia." This says nothing about language and is therefore a fairly straightforward duplication of Category:Serbs of Croatia. I trust that those who want the category kept as some sort of language category have the expertise to reorganize it according to how they think it should be? Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, & GO. I checked A-N and all were clearly Serbs born in Croatia (no "individuals who have emigrated from Serbia to Croatia" sighted). That only leaves 5 unchecked. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(changing my !vote) Merge per nom, & GO. I initilally opposed because I wanted to see some light shed on the complexities, but the subsequent discussion has persuaded me that the term "Serbo-Craot2 is best left for the language, at least as far as categories are concerned. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 16 March 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 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Slightly more broader name and fits in with the commonly used naming convention for such articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me - thanks for the note. BenMacDui 19:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this is not about for example sustainable medical or legal practices. The target will much better describe the content. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 8 March 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 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is unlikely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search suggests that "ecohic" is some sort of hideous marketing droid's neologism of vague meaning (se e.g. here), so I disagree with the the nominator's assertion that the "category is unlikely to be populated". On the contrary, I think that the lack of any stable definition will lead to this category filling up with all sorts of unrelated content. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 6 March 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:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Compiling 10,000 career rushing yards is a notable achievement that likely factors into hall of fame voting. Similar categories for baseball players are subcategories of Category:Baseball records. - Eureka Lott 18:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something. Not being a fan, and not understanding the sport, I make no suggestion, except that the present name is unsatisfactory. I assume that 10,000 is a major milepost in a career, so that it has some notability, and I note that it is reasonably populated. However the abbreviation needs expansion. I think there are some cricket records of this kind, eg 1000 wickets. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to delete, unless someone has some evidence that this exact total is a notable achievement. So far I can see evidence that rushing yards are regularly counted by sites such as nhl.com, but no evidence that any particular ceremony or recognition follows reaching this figure. However, I know little about the sport, and I suggest relisting to allow further discussion, of which WP:NFL should be notified. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 13 March 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.
Support. Gives a more descriptive title which aids navigation by readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 8 March 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 per nominator, but re-create old names as redirects. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 13 March 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 all. --Xdamrtalk 18:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Changed my mind, because OECD is the common name of the organisation and it is not ambiguous. Expanding the abbreviation creates horribky long category names, particularly on the members states categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OECD is intuitive, long form is not. Orderinchaos 18:21, 9 March 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.
Merge to Category:Trade unions of Belize. This one is too small to keep for now, but no objection to re-creating it if and when there are enough articles to justify its existence: say five article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 8 March 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.
Category:NGOs designated as terrorist by a government[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.
Merge to Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Non-governmental organizations. This is not quite OCAT. It's too small a category to retain, but the convention of categorising as "designated as terrorist" is the consensus NPOV solution to the old long-running dispute over whether to categorise ppl or organisations as "terrorist". The consensus was that since the word terrorist is a highly POV term (see WP:WTA), it should not be used without qualification, and since WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation specifies "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves", the simple solution is categorise by the fact that someone has designated these groups as terrorist, without asserting the opinion that they are terrorist. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NPOV, also many organisations are designated "terrorist" by governments in various parts of the world for which this would not be a useful categorisation. Orderinchaos 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV concerns apply equally to the parent Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and all of its other sub-categories, so if you want to pursue that point I think that there should be a group nomination of them all. However, the "designated as terrorist" formulation is a compromise between editors who wanted to categorise with the unqualified label "terrorist" and those who wanted to eliminate it ... and as above I think that the formulation used does try to follow the principle set out at WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. You may disagree, and if so pls make that group nomination! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 13 March 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. — ξxplicit 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another case where the abbreviation rolls off the tongue but those who use it often have to consult a dictionary to know what it means. Proposed target also unnecessarily creates an WP:ENGVAR issue. Orderinchaos 18:19, 9 March 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:No Consensus. Further consolidation in this area should form the basis of a fresh nomination. --Xdamrtalk 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Slightly different name for the space category and only one member of the nautical category; this may merit deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all "MMORPGs." MMORPG is a well-known term and these changes would make the category names very cumbersome. MMORPGs are also (more often than not), not really "role-playing" games. Carlaude:Talk 04:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a suggestion, and I could easily see other arrangements.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Hi Mike. thanks for your good comments. truthfully, i think that both the "MMORPGs in space" and the "sci-fi MMORPG" categories serve a useful purpose. MMORPGs in space are becoming a very specific and unique genre. they have a setting unlike any other. those which are truly in space differ from general sci-fi MMORPGS which may relate to space, but which do not truly allow interactions or movement in a space-based setting. Games like EVE Online, Star Wars Galaxies, etc, are truly a unique and notable component of the MMORPG genre, with their own unique dynamics. plus it fulfills another role of making Wikipedia more complete in its coverage. so I would suggest retaining that category. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Much as I depreciate abbreviations, the full version is such a mouthful that I think we must keep them for the subcategories, but the full name should ALWAYS be in a headnote (for example by making the general article the main article for them all). The full name should certainly be retained for the parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, I concur on retaining the mmorpg abbreviation. Your suggestion about a note sounds good too. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but concur with Peterkingiron's comment. Mike's proposed merges all appear reasonable from where I'm sitting. Orderinchaos 18:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose expanding acronym per Peterkingiron; great in principle, but the result is just too much of a mouthful for use in subcategories. I agree that there does seem to be some scope for mergers or deletions, but I suggest that for clarity any further discussions of mergers or deletions should be left to a separate nomination after this one closes. A better decision can be made if we are considering one issue at a time. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 10 March 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:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, MUD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this be Category:MUDs ? Regardless, the MUD article should probably be renamed to Multi-User Dungeon. --Scandum (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed. If the main article gets moved (and I notice it), I will withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move main article to match presnet category. Mud is what sticks to my boots. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given BrownHairedGirl a lot of flak about charging into this with a lack of respect, but you deserve at least as much. Your personal unfamiliarity with a topic isn't a good reason to alter it. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and suggest renaming main article. To those not involved in gaming, "MUD" is an obscure acronym, and looks like bad capitalisation of the stuff made from wet clay. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Rationale is that "Multi-User Dungeon" is not the only 100% conclusive and definitive expansion of the MUD acronym. Category should be moved to Category:MUDs --Thoric (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of any other expansion in the head article, let alone any sign of reliable sources to support the claims. The construction of backronyms can be done at any time, even when the origins of the name are undisputed, so their existence demonstrates nothing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plain and simple fact is that almost nobody uses the phrase, "Multi-User Dungeon", and almost everyone uses the term, "MUD". Therefore it is incorrect to claim that the term MUD is obscure when the exact opposite is true -- it is the phrase Multi-User Dungeon which is obscure. Nobody who is unfamiliar with the term MUD would say, "Ahh! If you had said, 'Multi-User Dungeon', I would have known exactly what you were talking about!" While I do agree that "Multi-User Dungeon" is the most correct origin of the term "MUD", for 99% of the MUD community, "MUD" is not a simple acronym, but instead the word that describes their hobby. I would also go so far as to say that a significant percentage of MUD players have no clue that it started as an acronym. --Thoric (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thoric, you are describing things from the perspective of the players of such games (I have no idea whether you are a MUD-player, I'm just noting which perspective you have chosen to focus on). Wikipedia is not written for players of the game; it is written for a general audience, many of whom may never have heard of any of this stuff. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A general audience cannot have a perspective on a subject for which they are unfamiliar, it must be presented to them. The fact of the matter is, that the term to describe the said subject matter is a "MUD". This is the terminology used by players, administrators (or "wizards"), creators, developers and every expert within this entire field. I, myself personally am not a player (well, I did play, years ago), and would be considered to be a MUD expert. My qualifications for this are that I have owned and operated a MUD for over 15 years, and also authored a public MUD code base, published a printed MUD magazine, and maintained a large archive of MUD source code. --Thoric (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you're someone heavily involved in Multi-User Dungeons, with a lot of contact with others also immersed in that topic. If, instead, you were deeply involved with Irish farming, you'd talk of the IFA or the ICMSA, and think it mighty odd if anyone expanded those to Irish Farmers Organisation or 'Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association'. The outsider may have heard of none of those things, whether expanded or abbreviated, but the exanded name gives a lot more clues about waht is being referred to. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid argument, to say that, while "Multi-User Dungeon" may be no more familiar than "MUD" to those remote from the topic, it provides somewhat more of a hint. I'd say this should've been your tack from the beginning. I don't think it's enough to overcome the reasons against a rename, though. The "pro" is fairly weak; it's not necessary that the name of an article explain the topic to the reader, because that's what the article body is for. The "cons", that "Multi-User Dungeon" simply isn't the common name of the topic, and cannot be unequivocally said to be the expansion of the acronym, weigh more heavily, I think. It's also worth considering that "MUD" is necessarily going to be more familiar to non-MUD-players than "Multi-User Dungeon", simply because we say "MUD" when we talk to our non-MUD-playing associates, not "Multi-User Dungeon". —chaos5023 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing apples to oranges. The phrase "Multi-User Dungeon" is meaningless to anyone not intimately familiar with the specific history involved. "Dungeon" is the name of the non-commercial version of a single-player text adventure game, much more famously known by its working title (as it was also its commercial title) -- Zork. The very first MUD's working title was "MUD" -- being a multi-user game inspired by Dungeon. Therefore only people who have played the Dungeon Zork variant (i.e. the non-commercial free version of Zork -- a game long forgotten), would have any clue of what a "Multi-User Dungeon" might represent. While some may confuse "MUD" with wet dirt, "Multi-User Dungeon" is no more clear, and could be confused with being associated with the BDSM community. See, for example: Dungeon_(BDSM) --Thoric (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Subsequent discussion has indicated that MUD is the correct name of the main article per WP:COMMONNAME, and RSes have been found and cited for alternate versions of the acronym. Correct name of the category is MUDs. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Subsequent discussion has indicated" merely that three or 4 editors assert that point. No evidence whatsoever has been produced that MUD is the COMMONNAME outside of MUD-playing circles: all we have at the RM on that point is assertion, and repeated incivility when evidence is sought for any of the points under discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An equal amount of nothing has indicated that MUDs have a common name outside of MUD-playing circles that is different from the one they have inside of them. A term can be as obscure as we like and still be the most common name of a topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your statement is no longer true. The title of the book Playing MUDs on the Internet, ISBN0-471-11633-5, which is a general-audience work written to familiarize readers with MUDs, is evidence that MUD is the common name of the topic outside of MUD-playing circles. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 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 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to expand abbreviation, but although it's not a CFD issue I really do wonder whether every single aspect of student life at one university is really notable enough to have an article of its own. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is MIT is far more widely understood than its expansion (and I'm writing from the other side of the world). Orderinchaos 18:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article and parent category. - choster (talk) 15:53, 14 March 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.
Keep Anyone interested in cricket knows what MCC stands for. Spelling it out in full makes for more work all round. Motmit (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename Why? The article is fully spelt out because there is more than one organisation called the MCC, but Marylebone Cricket Club is by far the most common one referred to in the context of cricket. Is there some confusion or ambiguation I'm unaware of? Otherwise this is pointless fiddling and time could be better spent elsewhere. Nev1 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to say this constant expansion of acronyms in categories is getting somewhat out of hand. The MCC is, well, the MCC. With "cricket" put next to it, there is zero possibility of a misunderstanding IMO. SGGHping! 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SGGH. It isn't referred to as Marylebone Cricket Club, it is referred to as the MCC. Harrias (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose few people will recall what MCC stands for. There is no ambiguity because it is about cricketers. I expect that other MCC categories would need a disambiguator. In practice it used to be the governing body for the English sport or something close to that, so that its activiity was rather more than being the club that played at Lords. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in conjunction with a category of cricketers, there is no ambiguity over what "MCC" stands for. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the above. In a cricket context, MCC is unambiguous, and it's not just the common name of the club, and it's so widely used that many people who know of the MCC won't know what it stands for. Per Peterkingiron, other MCC categories may need expansion if they don't include the word "cricket" or "cricketer". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there's no ambiguity (and I love Andrew Nixon's suggestion :) Orderinchaos 18:13, 9 March 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 per Vegaswikian. Orderinchaos 18:14, 9 March 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.
Oppose JR West appears to be the English form of their trademarked (as opposed to legal business) name; the other category should be renamed to match this one. Just as, for instance, my city has TransPerth stations but the actual authority involved is the Public Transport Authority, which only public policy geeks like myself actually seem to know. Orderinchaos 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent category and main article. If they are ever changed, this one could be changed back. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:24, 15 March 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.
