Category:Former airlines serving les Saintes[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) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We don't categorize airlines based on the places they served. We categorize them based on where the airline was headquartered. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have nominatd two more unnecessary Les Saintes categories here. Some one seems to have had an excess of enthusiasm for categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Les Saintes" is ambiguous. Also categorizing airlines by places they used to go to would make horrible bloating of categories on the bottom of airline articles. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Les Saintes" redirects to Îles des Saintes. It's probably the most common way to refer to those islands. The categories that refer to the island probably should use "Îles des Saintes", though, since that's the name of the article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly an unnecessary category, and badly named, too. Only one of its members appears to be a "former airline" pablo 10:55, 17 December 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:People investigated on charges of terrorism[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We generally do not categorize people who have merely been investigated on particular criminal charges. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- much to vague. Possibly risks libel suits, due to innuendo "no smoke without fire". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A case might be made for speedily delete, as this category seems entirely disparaging. Ardric47 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 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:Keep. The fact that it was renamed out of process isn't enough of a reason to rename it if the user who renamed it was actually correct; and no onehas been able to present any evidence that, in some ENGVARs, "yoghurt" is correct. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What sense does it make to have a category named differently than the main article. Further, I'm confused whose variant you are speaking of. As per the current OED [oed.com], newest Oxford Style Manual, the British Dairy Council [milk.co.uk], and virtually every pot of yogurt sold in the UK, yogurt is used. You are trying to be ultra politically correct by painting it as ENGVAR in order to defend a silly spelling that is falling out of use. Move forward. -Kai445 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to nominator) You may be able to strengthen your case by looking at the websites of the members of the category to see how they spell the word. I've only looked at two - they both use "yogurt" --Northernhenge (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one in the category does. I checked.
Brands using "Yogurt": Arla (Denmark) stylizes it as "Yoggi" but spells it "Yogurt". Brown Cow uses "Yogurt". Fage S.A. is Greek, but in English uses "Yogurt". Groupe Danone (Worldwide, aka Dannon in USA) uses "Yogurt" (Labels: USAGBRCAN). Müller (German, sells in UK) uses "Yogurt". Rachel's Organic (UK) uses "Yogurt". Stonyfield uses "Yogurt". Yeo Valley (UK) uses ""Yogurt". Yoplait uses "Yogurt" USA/GBR/CAN.
Brands not using "Yogurt": Michel et Augustin (French, and uses predominantly French on their packaging) spells it "Yaourt", Hewitt's Dairy (Canada) spells it "Yogourt". Neither with an "H".
This should be a speedy close to keep things as is. -Kai445 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like the proposal is to reverse an out of process empty of one category with the contents moved to a new category by Kai445. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as the main article has just been moved to Yogurt, I don't see a convincing reason to have the categories deviating from the article name. If the moves were done out of process, then a {{trout}} is in order, but there's no need to undo-and-redo just for the sake of undoing and redoing, I don't think. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Yoghurt" gets 23M Ghits; "Yogurt" gets 83.2M Ghits. The latter is thus clearly the preferred spelling. The category should follow the article name and that clearly has the appropriate spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kai445, if nothing in the category uses "yoghurt", why was the category ever named that way? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:WP:ENGVAR applies to articles. Is it actually extrapolated to categories, which are not articles or even part of an article? Where there's regional variation with spelling, I've noticed that most (but not all) categories reflect the spelling used by the "nearest" article. Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:ENGVAR is a red herring. It would only apply if the spelling difference was about national usage. It isn't. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as amply explained by others. Neutralitytalk 01:47, 20 December 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 rational: Category is not needed, we already have Category:Firearms and +cat has few articles in it. JunoBeach (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page tag is malformed. I regret that I cannot see how to fix this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 13 December 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:No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bit of a misnamed category; apparently, oval-track racing is sometimes referred to as "speedway" (presumably, after the track) in Australia and New Zealand. Here, though, it's absolutely going to cause confusion with motorcycle speedway, which this category has nothing to do with. Best, I believe, to merge it into the main category, as there doesn't seem to be a particularly pressing need for the breakout, ambiguous name or not. The BushrangerOne ping only 07:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. I'm a kiwi and I've never heard of speedway drivers referred to as racing drivers. In New Zealand English speedway is an oval track shared by motorbikes and cars (also caravans etc on occasion). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the New Zealand in the name already enough disambiguation? Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the majority of Wikipeida users won't know that New Zealand uses "Speedway", as a sport, in an entirely different manner than the rest of the world. "New Zealand speedway drivers" = people from New Zealand who compete at speedway. - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:43, 16 December 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, noting this category is for the local government district and not just the city it takes its name from. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article for this category is City of Preston, Lancashire, so this category would be eligible for speedy renaming to match that. I bring it here only because there might be a preference to rename this to Category:Preston, Lancashire, which is actually part of the City of Preston. Note that Preston is a disambiguation page, so Category:Preston would ideally be a disambiguation category for this and other categories named "Preston". Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PreferCategory:Preston, Lancashire. I agree that this Preston is the Primary usage, but without a disambiguator, the category is liably to pick up irrelevant articles, relating to other places called Preston. The name is a relatively common one, meaning "Priest town", but this is the largest one. I doubt that we need a separate category for the town from the rest of the city. As a precedent, the article on the Midland city is at Birmingham, but the categories are at Category:Birmingham, England, so that it does not inadvertently pick up articles on Birmingham, Alabama. In this case we have an article at Preston, Lancashire on the town at the core of City of Preston, Lancashire, which is about a larger local government district including the town. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support "City of Preston, Lancashire". There may be a case for creating a subcategory "Preston, Lancashire", but the existing category tree includes many articles that lie outside the settlement but inside the district. -- Dr Greg talk 19:30, 17 December 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. These are local, non-defining award-like categories. See WP:OC#AWARD. Lists exists at Oklahoma Hall of Fame and Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame . Induction into these halls could be mentioned in the articles for these individuals, but I don't think they are important or defining enough to be a category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline - for some it may be defining, for others, not. In borderline cases I try to err on the side of keeping the baby and bathwater both. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:28, 14 December 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 as nominated. If there are more Pete Smith films beyond the Specialties, then that can be recreated as a subcategory of the new category. As for "(film producer)," I think we've been overzealous in our category disambiguation, and I believe this one is unambiguous, and needs no disambiguation. But the commenters are correct that we have been disambiguating when it matches article titles, so that's what I'm doing here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pete Smith Specialties" is the collective title for a series of about 300 short films produced by Pete Smith for MGM from 1931 to 1955. I don't know whether the categorized films are all of that series or if Smith produced films outside the Specialties series. I believe that the Specialties series, if they're a subset of Smith's output, is worthy of categorization but since I'm not a subject matter expert I agree that a rename is in order with no prejudice to recreation if appropriate subject matter comes into existence. I think Category:Films produced by Pete Smith suffices, since there seems little chance of confusion with any other Pete Smith. 70.226.167.200 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only because "Pete Smith" is ambiguous. There would be no other Pete Smith with a film production category, and if there should be the need for one in the future this can be renamed. 70.226.167.200 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True...but the current WikiWinds are for category names to match article names whenever possible. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that "Films produced by" is sufficient to let people know that the Pete Smith in question is the film producer without the parenthetical and IMHO simpler names are better. But I don't care particularly strongly either direction. 76.204.89.32 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That approach works well for articles, but not so well with categories. If someone sees an article about Pete Smith (film producer), the easiest way to search for and find categories that refer to the same person is to use the same name: "Pete Smith (film producer)". This is the standard way categories reflect article names for persons and organizations, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One glance at the main article Pete Smith (film producer) explains that "Pete Smith Specialties" refers specifically to a series of short films made for MGM. All of the films categorized here belong there. Simpler names are better....especially as opposed to the proposed "Category:Films produced by Pete Smith (film producer)", which is an unpretty name. --Lockley (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've renamed and reworked the article, since nearly all of it covered the films anyway, rather than the man himself. Pete Smith would not be notable otherwise. So the article now called Pete Smith Specialties provides a WP article to name the category after. --Lockley (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth would you obliterate the article on the producer? Is there some reason why, instead of over-writing a perfectly valid subject, you couldn't have simply started the Specialties article on its own? Smith is certainly notable along with the film series. Can someone with the necessary savvy please sort it out so that the article on the producer is restored and not a barren redirect to the Specialties article? Bad form. 76.201.159.78 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "obliterate" anything, as a review of the changes will show. The article has been re-organized and re-named to accurately reflect its subject. --Lockley (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There's an article on the producer as well as the series? No, there isn't, because without discussion you moved the article on the producer to the current title, removed all biographical information and then created a redirect from the original article name to this one. All you had to do was create the article under the current title instead of wrecking the old one. 76.201.159.78 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article back to Pete Smith (film producer) because of the objections, though I've not made any other content changes or reversions. I do agree that it's not a great idea to make changes like this mid-discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think Pete Smith Specialties is notable and Pete Smith himself is not, but no further changes or comments from me on this topic. --Lockley (talk) 23:24, 21 December 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.
