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) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale Arabic is a language. We should clearly rename these cats to reflect this. The other option is to rename all these to Arab X, but Arab is not the same thing as Arabic, it is an ethnic designation with horribly disputed inclusion rules. Since we already have the precdent of using Arabic with these cats we should accept it as the forming precedent and explcitly state what is being implied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all I see the subcats categorize people from different ethnicities. As such, it would be contradictory to not rename these cats.Curb Chain (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After looking through the subcats of User:Stefanomione's Category:Media by medium grouping, I think this one is problematic, too. Television is the medium. Different TV genres or formats do not make for a different "medium." A blooper show or a mini-series is not a medium, in our sense of the term. I say just delete it. The contents are adequately categorized. Actually, they weren't, but I have now added the parent category for the pre-established Category:Television programs by type, using per pre-established Category:Films by type, as a model. Again, I believe the use of "medium" to describe TV formats is misleading. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I want to point out that "medium" is a latinsingular of "media". By this fact alone, Category:Television programs by medium should be deleted as it does not categorize its entries by medium, as "media" are physical things in which information is broadcast, not genres.Curb Chain (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For Category:Media by medium, I suggestingsuggest deleting the category, moving the entries that are not yet in other categories to their appropriate place, because Media by medium is vague, and other categories adequately describe their entries' properties.Curb Chain (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (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:American people of Pakistani-Jewish descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale This category has been empty about a week. Before that it contained 1 person who was A-not Jewish which conflicts with the parent cats that are only for Jews B-her last Jewish ancestor lived in India, that is the current boundaries of India, and converted to Islam before the creation of Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that Pakistani-descent is a modern phenomenon and should not be retroactively applied to a time when Pakistan was integrally part of India. Unless we actually find American Jews who really had Jewish ancestors living within Pakistan at a time that Pakistan actually existed, we should not have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion by Cfd. If this category is empty it should be deleted under the speedy process for empty categories - to delete the category here will materially complicate the reactivating of the category in the unlikely event that a suitable article is subsequently found or created. If the category is not empty, it should not be deleted and any discussion as to the suitability of specific articles for listing in the category should be discussed in the Discussion page of the article in question. Davshul (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pakistan is such a new country that I do not think we are likely to find Jews with ancestors who actually lived in it. This is a structural problem with the category. Anyway, I did not know you could oppose Cfd deleting things. I always figured you could oppose speedying, but CfD was a more deliberative process and so the default lesser one. I guess Davshul could say "delete without prejudice". However I think we should have prejudice against this category because the very notion of Pakistani-Jewish ancestry is ahoistorical.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category discussion pages have a notice recomending against discussions there because almost no one ever looks at them. The premise of these Jews by national origin cats is that there is specific ethnic differences based on the various nations. I do not think this applies to Pakistan. There is no reason why we need these subcats for every country a Jew may have had ancestors from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There is no such thing as a "national sci-fi award" that I know of. Inclusion of subcategories Australian science fiction awards and Canadian science fiction awards suggests that it was meant to be "by country" type of the category. Thus, I suggest it is renamed, added to the "by country" category tree, and all entries other than those already in the subcategories are depopulated back to Science fiction awards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:26, 11 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? As creator and naming conventions. No need to drag this out to a 40 minute keyboard solo... Lugnuts (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2011 (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: Poorly-made category structure by one user. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D; revisit deletion in a separate nomination if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the name of the company. Since there are only 2 articles in the category, Delete could also be an option. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2011 (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:Joint Commission International accredited hospitals in South East Asia[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete . Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not sure of the focus here but it appears to be hospitals accredited by one association in one part of the world, a triple intersection. If these are really accredited by the Joint Commission, then they are a few of the 19,000 granted so this is not likely to be defining. I looked but could not find any other categories for hospitals by accreditation, so do we want to start that? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial informationCurb Chain (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Information on hospital should be mentioned in hospital articles, but should not be a category as it is not sufficiently defining. After all, we would hardly have very member articles on non-Joint Commission accredited hospitals. Neutralitytalk 02:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in general grouping things by accredidating body does not seem worth while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2011 (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) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other such suggestions below--if it's not famous (that is, not notable), it wouldn't have an article. "Fame" is assumed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. I see no beneifit to differenciating the street funiture articles in the way proposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2011 (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:Redirects from Portuguese-language terms[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Other such categories (e.g. Category:Redirects from Spanish-language terms) have been emptied and deleted. I'm not sure why, but I can say that it's pretty silly to have just one category like this with just one entry... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info. The other categories were not emptied, they were never filled. They were created because of the concern that may be there are too many articles in R from alternative languages. --Againme (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (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) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Famous" is unnecessary. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, and agree that it’s clearer without “Famous”. Thanks the improvement!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Famous unnecessaryCurb Chain (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if it is not by some definition "famous" there would not be an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - "notable," "famous," etc. are pretty much always unnecessary in category names, per JPL. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per precedent and as above. Neutralitytalk 02:47, 14 August 2011 (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: "Famous" is unnecessary. "Rail transport" is used in the parent category and avoids the railway vs railroad debate. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Model railroads. All the articles in the category appear to be 'toy' (or model) layouts. A transport 'model' is theoretical structure for the design and implementation of a transport system (which may or not be restricted to rail). Is this a UK/US difference? Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Famous is not necessary.Curb Chain (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does "Model railroads" avoid that ambiguity? Whether model is at the start or end, it still means the same thing. If "Rail transport models" is ambiguous, then so is "Rail transport modelling". Besides, "Model railways" seems more appropriate than "railroads" because the parent category uses British English (also they're not roads). McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mean the same thing to me: Model railroad (adjective) is a ‘toy’ or miniature railroad; Railroad model (noun) is a theoretical structure. Living in the UK I would prefer "Model railways", but am happy to stick with "Model railroads". Is this a UK/US difference? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a national difference but I'm sure everyone understands both. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Models as I have already said. Model as an adjective has no such ambiguity. I agree that "Rail transport modelling" is ambiguous, on exactly the same grounds as Category:Models. Occuli (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was referring to with the national difference. But "model railway" and "railway model" are identical. The only difference is the way people interpret them. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Model railroads If they were not famous (notable), they would not have WP articles. And 'famous' is not used in category names. Hmains (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Model railroads - "Rail transport models" is confusing, and clarity takes precedence over strictly adhering to parent category names. Neutralitytalk 02:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Model railroads. The name works other than the famous part and I see no reason to change it. To say "they are not roads" is to use a narrow use of the term. To some people they are the only true roads. Road is a broad word with many meanings. We should go for the minimum change neccesary, and that is scapping famous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Model railroads. There is no reason to change the version of English used to name this category. The only change needed is to remove 'famous' from the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2011 (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.
