WikiProject Association Football in Australia[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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – PeeJay 00:03, 24 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:Delete or rename. I'm not sure that having been a prisoner in Fleet Prison is as defining as are the other subcategories of Category:Prisoners and detainees by prison, like prisoners of the Tower of London, Alcatraz, Auschwitz, Robben Island, Guantanamo Bay, etc. But if we do keep this category, we should at least use the name of the prison as it is in the article about the prison, which is Fleet Prison. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename per nom certainly being a prisoner here is as significant as any other prison. Look at the illustrious inmates. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a prisoner here has to be more significant than being a prisoner in "any other prison", since we don't generally categorize prisoners by prison. Only in exceptional cases do we so categorize. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - I would say that this is definitely at least as defining as other prisons, but the nom is right that the name could be clearer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 24 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:Delete. Small category with only 2 articles besides the main one. Of those, only one is mentioned in the main article. Both are basically stubs, and one is for something that happens to be within the grounds and is not worth a mention in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too few articles to justify a category. Robofish (talk) 00:20, 29 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:Merge. I'll leave a redirect in place. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This 19th century baseball team appears to have been called the Spokane Bunchgrassers (all one word). Boissière (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The categories for the historical minor league baseball teams are based on what they are called on baseballreference.com.. The Bunch Grassers are listed as two words one season and one word the next. Should remain two categories to keep consistency with other similar categories. Spanneraol (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one baseball-reference.com page (here) for the one word name and this mentions all three seasons. Can you point me at anything which shows them having the names separate? Boissière (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. It is all one team, and the article uses the one-word name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per John Pack Lambert. If it is one team we don't need two categories. Probably best to leave a cat redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 30 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) 21:55, 25 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 to Category:Dover, England; revisit this if the main article title is changed. There's a strong feeling that the main article title is by default rather than consensus and that ambiguity would be repeated for the category. There are various precedents for category titles to have disambiguation even when the main article doesn't, due to the nature of the beasts. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To conform category to main article. Mhockey (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. There is no primary topic here and the capital city of Delaware has a clear claim. I think that the cat disambiguation pointers say it all.
Views
Dover - 9986 but this includes hits that have to go to the dab page or the district
Dover (district) - 556
Dover, Delaware - 7680
Dover, New Jersey - 1471
and there are another 66 uses! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Per main article and for navigational ease; strongly disagree that the capital city of Delaware (which in terms of age is an infant compared to Dover, England, and which also gets fewer hits) has priority. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Dover is clearly not the primary topic. If you think it is only a case between two articles, you are not reading. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's primary enough that it is currently the main article. (Also, "Town of Dover" is not particularly disambiguating.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Last year there was no consensus on the proper name of the article. If there is not yet a consensus on the proper name of the article, I guess we should also leave the category name alone. I can understand that there would be disagreements on the article name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try and separate the two issues. There is a sort of consensus that generally articles and categories referring to the same topic have the same name - conforming the two is one of the criteria for speedy rename (WP:CFDS C2.D). Why depart from that here? No-one should be happy with a situation where Dover and Category:Dover refer to different topics, and Category:Town of Dover and Dover refer to the same topic - it's just confusing to the user. If you want to reopen the debate on renaming the article, this is not the place to do it. --Mhockey (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of consensus exists when there might be a case where the name may reasonably be taken to be be a likely primary topic or not confusing. Without doing much digging, it is clear that the article in question does not even come close to getting the majority of page reads so it is clearly a bad choice for the category name. Articles that are in the main name space as a result of poor choices should not override common sense in the category names. Oh, age is not a criteria for primary usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if want to revisit last October's discussion in the right place, please go ahead. There was no consensus to move Dover then: if you think there might be now, you know what to do. Absent a proposal to move the article, let's return to the matter in hand: do you think that Category:Town of Dover is the right title for the category? If not, what would you propose? --Mhockey (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: something that was said above. The C2D crition at speedy is subject to a caveat: "If there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, then this criterion does not apply." This discussion is a great example of "ongoing discussion" about the inappropriateness of an article name, so the criterion does not apply. I agree with Vegaswikian that if there is no consensus on the proper name of an article, those who disagree with the name of the article are under no requirement to support renaming of the category name to the name that they feel is inappropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although there was no ongoing discussion about the names when this rename was proposed, so it met the speedy criterion then. My point was that criterion C2D indicates strongly (to me at least) a consensus that generally articles and categories referring to the same topic should have the same name. That's all - if there is no such consensus, the speedy criterion should go.
It is a fine point, but I do not think it right to say that "there was no consensus on the proper name". There was no consensus to change the name - that is not quite the same thing. A further twist is that one (involved) admin believed that there was consensus to retain the name, based on the strength of the arguments, not just a vote count (diff here)- a view not shared by the closing admin. The effect was the same, so I don't think anyone cared.
I don't think that the discussion could fairly be said to represent a consensus to keep the current name either. It just defaults to keep if there is no consensus to change. So you combine the two, and you end up with there was no consensus on the proper name. ... I was never too fond of the recent addition of C2D—there are too many exceptions to make it reasonably iron clad—but I have to admit that it is extremely useful, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Town of Dover, Kent for standard WP disambiguation (to name state, county, province, canton, etc.), regardless of how the article is or will be named. Just as many non-Americans will/won't know Delaware is a U.S. state as non-British will/won't Kent is an English county - Delaware and Kent are equivalents Mayumashu (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Dover in Delaware is located in Kent County, which might slightly complicate things. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two well-known places called Dover. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Dover, England. This better follows the MoS. I never knew the US one was in Kent county, so that takes the use of Kent for disambiguation off of the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 30 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: Use of the word "Government" in the British Isles is normally reserved to first level state-like institutions. The term "Local government" is more appropriate to second or third tier entities which is what this category covers. Lastly, some of the entities only cover a part of the county of Dublin, not the entire historic county. For this reason "in" is preferable to "of". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:33, 23 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:Delete. I'm pretty sure this was only used for a WP:CCI task that is now completed, and I can't see how it is currently useful. But I'm listing here in case I'm wrong... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:35, 23 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:Delete as overcategorization. Taking cue from CFDs on June 21 in which the whole categoization scheme of groups/acts by decade was deemed as overcategozation (see WP:CFD Log/2011 Jun 21). Plus, I would think that a majority of New Wave acts emerged in the 1980s. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:49, 23 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 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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:00, 25 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:speedily deleted. - Fayenatic(talk) 22:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this with a grammar error and have corrected it. It serves no further purpose since that happened. Guerillero | My Talk 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Deletion requested by author. No need to take this to CFD; just place the tag {{db-author}} on it for speedy deletion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:05, 23 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:Children's non-educational video games[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.
Rename. We do not categorize by what something is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 25 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 C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:02, 25 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: Only four articles--all can (and are) easily interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Stupid licenced vandalism (not exactly conducive to "☮"), and of no benefit to Wikipedia as I have told you numerous times before. Why do this? The mind boggles.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is inappropriate for several reasons. If you can't constructively explain why you oppose the proposal, don't make a comment. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just have. It is no benefit to Wikipedia to delete this kind of category. Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable to delete these categories just now. I do not consider it "constructive" to go round deleting all of these categories like this, but it seems to be going on all the time. I just wish I had more time to monitor all of this activity on the deletions pages, but I'm busy elsewhere.
I consider this kind of thing licenced vandalism, because the people concerned are not only staying within the rules, they're creating them, because they have the time to do so. And yet the alleged benefits are negligible, and maybe even detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. I don't intend to follow the herd on this. This kind of deletion should be nipped in the bud forthwith, and I'm not just referring to this particular CfD.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, others probably disagree with you, and it's extremely inappropriate to call a formal CFD nomination "vandalism" of any type. I assume you know the definition of "vandalism" on Wikipedia: "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia ... Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." By calling it vandalism, you are suggesting that the nominator is making a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Are you sure you don't want to retract that accusation? You can disagree that the nomination has merit or will result in a net benefit, but I think you probably should refrain from impugning the nominator's intent. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What kind of nominations do you have in mind here? I don't understand what the common element is to the nominated deletions, so I don't think anyone has an idea of what your objection actually is. Why should this category be kept? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a category doesn't really seem necessary here. Robofish (talk) 00:19, 29 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: Upmerge to parent cat: we don't need to categorize by TV series and season. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and delete per nom: excessive subcategorisation. Robofish (talk) 00:18, 29 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:Page Music was deleted. One of the two albums is up for deletion too. Nothing keepable here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There is plenty of precedent for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. (Page Music is the record label, not the recording artist.) Occuli (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason to have a category for one thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 25 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.
