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 08:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:Overcategorization states: "Avoid categorization ... by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself". This is an example of categorizing films by characteristics of their names rather than by the subject or genre of the films. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't sure until I looked at the actual movies. These have nothing to do with each other and could have easily been named after something other than the year. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmitigated trivia. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 31 January 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:self-close: category creator appears to have "farted" away the category. I've restored the nomination to its original state.Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Contains only F. H. Faulding & Co and images of members of the Faulding family. Not sure what is the correct solution here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) Very rude of me to refactor your post, but only two of the photos are of the Faulding family - the rest are of various Scammells - Luther became Faulding's partner in 1861, and when Faulding died without issue, Luther "inherited"(?) the company.
b) I don't see that a discussion is necessary - I've created the new category and put a db-g7 on the old one.
c) y'know, you could have saved both of us a lot of farting around if you'd dropped me a line on my talk page and asked, rather than making a series of wrong assumptions, and then acting on them ...
Comment (nom). (a) If you recognise it as "very rude", you probably should not do it. With my nominations, I'd certainly prefer that you did not do so. Thx. (b) Personally, I generally prefer group discussions to unilateral decisions. (c) See (b). Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:04, 31 January 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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "Performer by performance" overcategorization. Just as actors are not categorized by what films they have appeared in, models are not categorized by what magazine covers they have appeared on. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At first glance this seems the same as Category:Playboy Playmates. Is their career more defined by being on the cover or is that magazine inherently more notable? (Standard disclaimer: I'm not suggesting one bad category should be kept because another bad category exists; I am trying to figure out what our overal desired categorization scheme should be.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is considerably less notable or defining than being a Playboy Playmate. The articles for each mention that the person has been featured in Men's Health, but it's not something that zips to the top of a model's resume when it is achieved in the same way being a Playboy Playmate would. I see the Playboy one as essentially the exception that proves the rule. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without Precedent: I'm fine with deleting this cat as being non-defining and non-notable. I don't support the logic of the original nomination to delete all magazine covers/media coverage categories across the board though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I did suggest that that should necessarily be done, I just stated the pre-existent general approach. There are two exceptions that I am aware of (Playboy and Penthouse). Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoF: I didn't mean to mischaracterize your intent. Sorry if I did. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. My nom was short and it could be interpreted that way. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:14, 31 January 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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. No need to have category for just 2 articles. Upmerge to parent. Tassedethe (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Searched for additional articles but didn't find any. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 1 February 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.
Support BHG. WE do not need to keep categories of this kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 4 February 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:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in The Benelux[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:divide by country as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unnecessary and poorly-named category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 2 February 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:upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge: I'm conceptually OK with this category, although I'd name it Category:Tamil language comedy films and it could include both Indian and Sri Lankan productions. But, it is underpopulated. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge: I would be fine with renaming but there is no Category:English-language comedy films already so that would be starting a new trend so to speak. And checking all three they are all Indian. Munci (talk) 01:39, 31 January 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.
Category:1920 architecture in the United States[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. Architecture is basically ambiguous since it covers so many aspects. Virtually all of the articles categorized here are based on the date the building was completed so renaming would reflect this fact and allow the categories to roll up into the appropriate building categories. If this passes, a few more nominations need to be made. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to to an upmerge. I do believe that I had nominated one of these before to not split out the US (so an upmerge). I believe that was rejected. I'll dig around to see if I can find that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support Architecture by year makes no sense IMO, as there usually is a period of a few years between design and completion (for this reason it is common in architecture to indicate the vintage as a period in the format 1924-29). Currently we have a perfect category mess with total confusion between building and architecture categories, so I welcome the initiative to sort this out. To avoid confusion and duplication, I suggest architecture categories by time period should only include buildings notable in architecture history and the smallest time unit be a decade (i.e. 1920s in this case). --Elekhh (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not disagree that there is a mess. In doing the cleanup, I found many dates used in categories are just wrong with no sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorising buildings by a specific year is pointless. Most buildings are completed over several years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If deletion is the consensus, that will not work since we would loose some category information. So to delete, we really need to merge to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1920. Unless you are planning to delete that branch also. In which case you would need to delete Category:Years in architecture which is really ambiguous as to the intent. However most buildings can be dated to a specific year of completion of if not generally to at least a century. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 3 February 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. There is no article on popular theatre and the whole premise is far too broad and subjective. Almost every style and genre of theatre is, or has been, popular. Tassedethe (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteInvisible theater is by definition is not popular? That one inclusion aside, this category is conceptually unworkable. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 1 February 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:Birla Institute of Technology Ranchi Alumni[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 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 an uncontested nomination, noting that this involves changing a set category to a topic category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the main article Pulau Tekong. Tassedethe (talk) 19:24, 30 January 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.
Category:Olympic basketball players of Taiwan[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:deletion proposal withdrawn. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is now empty, and formerly had four players who were of China (in the 1936 Olympics) before Taiwan was returned/made a part of the Republic of China, and therefore could not have been Taiwanese. (At least, nothing I can find suggests that they were.) Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) is not considered a basketball powerhouse and, while a decent team compared to its Asian brethren, is not expected to make the Olympics any time soon. I don't think leaving the empty category in anticipation of a possible Olympic run (possible — it would not be as unrealistic of a possibility as for some other countries) is a good idea, but I want to hear some thoughts (and that's why I didn't delete it immediately as an empty category). Delete is my opinion right now, however. --Nlu (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating for deletion:
Category:Olympic boxers of Taiwan. Same situation and same reason (previous members of category should actually be under China), but my feeling on deleting it is not as strong, since boxing being an individual sport, it is potentially more likely for a Taiwanese boxer to qualify. --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on being empty categories, and per the nom's rationale of the confusion over Taiwan/China (see Taiwan at the Olympics for more). There have been a few Olympic boxers of Taiwan in the 1980s, so no problem with recreation if/when they get their own articles. Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, do you have information on at least one? Creating one would obviously moot the issue as to the boxers. --Nlu (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are details of the two who competed in 1988 here. They'd easily pass WP:ATHLETE. Lugnuts (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If I have time (which won't be today, but maybe tomorrow), I may try to see if I can can get enough information to create one or both. If I (or you, or someone else interested) do, I will withdraw the nomination as to the boxer categories. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Yes, sounds good to be. FYI, they've only competed once in basketball, at the 1956 Olympics. Lugnuts (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I wasn't even aware that that occurred. In light of that, should one or more of those players' articles be created to moot the issue? --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added in all the 1956 squad. I'll have a look at a boxer or two later. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed opinion to Keep in light of Lugnuts's excellent work, as to the Olympic basketball players of Taiwan. Not sure about the propriety at this point of withdrawing the nomination, so will keep it going. --Nlu (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Yes, you can withdraw it, if you wish, or just wait another day for this to close anyway. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 6 February 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: Per common standard to use plural in category titles. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per common standards. JIP | Talk 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as typographical. --Pnm (talk) 02:01, 3 February 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:Irish rugby union schoolboy international players[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Playing at a schoolboy level does not confer notability. All these people are correctly categorised as professional players, per WP:ATHLETE. Tassedethe (talk) 14:19, 30 January 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.
Another Question: "Development codes" is not a phrase I'm familiar with relating to autos. And the articles I opened didn't describe themselves that way, rather they refer to a "series" of models or other descriptions. When I googled the term, I didn't get many hits. These are definitely not models but I'm wondering if this is the right rename. Can you point me to something (within or outside Wikipedia) that indicates this is the right terminology?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are probably BMW type codes used internally "The E stands for Entwicklung, the German word for Development. That's because the E codes are assigned by BMW at the beginning of model development." -->Typ932T·C 10:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So these come between a concept car and full model production? I agree the cat needs to be renamed but I'm just trying to figure out what the industry-wide term is so we can apply it consistently across differet companies. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as they are not "platform codes". However, these codes are used beyond the developmemt phase, so "BMW model codes" is more appropriate. The convention should also apply for Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:21, 7 February 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. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The longer name more precisely explains what readers would expect to find there. Orderinchaos 23:09, 30 January 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:Articles which may contain unencyclopedic material[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:Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. All other similar categores are called "Articles that may contain...", not "Articles which may contain...". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly rename - this is an obvious minor edit for consistency. I think you should just go ahead and do it (maybe the other three too if you have too much time on your hands) without waiting for the formality of CfD. Matchups 11:02, 10 February 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: The differentiation between what is a town and what is a city in Australia is complex and can vary depending on the definition used. What this means in practise for this category is that categories like Category:People from Junee, New South Wales are in the "city" parent cat, even though most people would consider it a town and Category:People from Geraldton, Western Australia are in the "town" parent cat, even though most would consider it a city.
Now while it would be possible to go through and "fix" these apparant anomalies individually—provided we could come to some consensus—I propose that the subdivision between city and town isn't really useful here. People using Category:People from Echuca are not fussed if Echuca is a town or a city.
It would prevent this inherent instability just to merge the two categories together. I am not really fussed about the name used—given this would be a meta-cat, I would not be opposed to a neologism if one fits. Mattinbgn (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there are a few 'city or town' schemes such as Category:People by city or town in the United Kingdom (in the UK there is a list of places with city status but towns can get promoted so it's not a fixed list, and Milton Keynes calls itself a city although AFAIK it isn't yet). Occuli (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nom and like Occuli's suggestion for a name. Orderinchaos 23:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This anomaly has bugged me for ages. Italy and New Zealand have combined cats also. –Moondyne 00:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the nominator's rationale, although I also agree with Orderinchaos that Occuli's suggestion is a good one. Category:People by city or town in Australia would eliminate any confusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Occuli's combination suggestion. IIRC Australia has a similar problem with this to NZ, where the definition of what constitutes a city was changed, meaning a lot of places still known as cities technically are now towns. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse in Australia because we have 6 states each with their own definitions, both historical and current. For instance Charters Towers in Queensland is a city with 8,000, yet a heap of towns in WA's northwest and Busselton in the southwest have 15,000-20,000 and yet have always been considered towns. Also there is confusion between cities with a charter and a Lord Mayor (of which there's only a dozen or less) and local government areas with the title "City of __" which can be just a few suburbs in a metro area. Orderinchaos 02:28, 1 February 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:do not merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Both of these categories currently cover mostly the same articles, so there isn't much of a reason for both categories to exist. I propose merging the smaller category (dams) into the more encompassing category (hydroelectric power stations). Slon02 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about merging the two trees? I recognize that merging the two trees would not be entirely practical, since there are a few dams that are not used for electric purposes. However, I don't think that it's right for the two trees to be almost identical in coverage. --Slon02 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most dams are *not* hydro dams, since dams have existed from antiquity, while hydro dams have only existed since the early 1900s. And while most hydro stations are linked to dams, not all hydro stations have dams either. I don't see how you can claim that most dams are for hydro purposes. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not all dams are for hydro-electric power: they may be stanking up water to power a water mill or for water supply to a city. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rationale is logically false, since one is not a subset of the other or vice versa, they are intersecting sets. Some hydro stations have no dams, some dams have no hydro stations. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:28, 7 February 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. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Basins is ambiguous, and since 2 or the 3 articles are clearly structural, so be it. Better name suggestions should be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is going against the naming convention of other categories in Category:Basins by country, and is not necessary. If in the future more basins of a different type are added, then we can further subcategorize as structural etc. -- Ϫ 15:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So at the country level, we should use the ambiguous name when Category:Basins is clearly explaining the various uses and has subcategories for each type? Basins include geologic basins and geographical basins and at least 5 specific types. So as it is, the inclusion criteria is by shared name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Everything in Category:Basins by country has been submitted for renaming. So if this is not renamed, it could turn out to be the only exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mental images of rows and rows of Canadian-flag-draped washbasins aside, the name clarifies to the average reader what one would expect to find in the category. Orderinchaos 23:07, 30 January 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.
