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: Several issues with this category. Magerøya is an island, so it should be "on" not "in". Secondly, it contains a lot of non-places (an airport, a chapel etc.) and a number of islands which by definition are not part of the island. By renaming it "Magerøya" the scope of including more general articles related to the island can be kept. Arsenikk(talk) 22:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who created this category, I agree with the proposal MartinCollin (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per creator's request. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2012 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Highly ambiguous between the geometric concept of angle and the Germanic people Angles. Tim! (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid confusion.--Lenticel(talk) 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and header description of category use in both, to further avoid future issues. --Qetuth (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Feels cold in here. Do you smell WP:SNOW? Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some change -- Something certainly needs to be done, but Category:angles produces this category. The geometic category is Category:Angle. It might be sufficient to put a capnote on each pointing to the other. Alternatively Category:Anglian people might be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (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: As far as I can tell, EC Salzburg is merely the former name of EC Red Bull Salzburg. Since we do not create new sets of categories each time a sports team changes its name, this category should be merged into its parent. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:23, 8 October 2012 (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:Hallescher FC originated in 1946 as a multi-sport club that was, from 1958 to 1966, known as SC Chemie Halle. In 1966, the football department was separated from the rest of the club to form FC Chemie Halle or HFC Chemie – the article and official website seem to differ on this point, though it's possible that both names were used – and the club's current name was adopted in 1991.
The sports club still exists, albeit under a new name: SV Halle (see the official website and the German Wikipedia article). However, in light of the fact that we have almost no content related to the sports club and that there is a significant degree of overlap between the two categories, I propose that they be merged. The alternative is to retain the category and rename it to Category:SV Halle, to reflect the organization's current name. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (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) 22:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Succinct and more standard wording, dealing with the same topic area. Brandmeistertalk 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the overall categorization scheme - this category is a grab bag of articles that don't fit within the present scheme, and rather than sorting them out - have been dumped all together. The head cat is 'Popes'. This category does not contain lists of encyclicals (as you might expect, documents written by the pope, but does contain the 'Divine Comedy' and 'legends of the popes'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. - jc37 06:02, 30 October 2012 (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:Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects[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:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as unneccesary, overly specific splitting of a topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2012 (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:Former Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects[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:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent to delete "[X] side projects" as well as the unnecessary "former". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge becaue we avoid using former in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. This seems to reflect the standard of Category:Images of musical groups. However, it is unnecessary and misleading categorization since album covers frequently do not feature an image of the band that recorded the album. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, there's only a subcategory here. Further this isn't images of Kara, since it's about Kara (band), not the Kara peninsula. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2012 (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: I believe that newly created categories, if not populated fairly quickly, may be deleted. I dont know how to populate this category. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is empty anyway, and would be deleted as a matter of course before long. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2012 (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:Opposed - jc37 06:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – subcat of Category:Anshan, Liaoning. I agree with BrownHairedGirl on the need to keep disambiguation for categories if there is ambiguity. Oculi (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anshan is the name of another place in China, so the current disambiguating in cat name should be followed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2012 (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: I don't know exactly what the parameters for "events in foo" are, but this one has only the one subcat. Should it have more? What qualifies as an "event"? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found three more subcategories and added them. I think some of the other subcategories of Category:Events in the United States also have the potential to be split by state. Tim! (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as to the main question - 'Events in the United States' has only 13 pages and 15 (other) categories. Of these, it looks like 3 are already split by state, but 3 would not make sense to split by state and most of the others have less than 50 pages, or consist of subcats with mostly less than 50 pages each. Splitting less than 50 pages between 50 states isn't great. So you would be looking at each category having 3 subcats (4 if the virtualy empty disestablishments tree is continued) and a scattering of direct pages on very different kinds of events. --Qetuth (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rereading my own conclusion. --Qetuth (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator and also original creator of the Establishments by country scheme. The United States presents a special case with its states usually (at least very often) being afforded the same privileges as countries when it comes to category structures such as "Events in", however certain modifications always need to be made since they link up into the United States and not the "by contry" hierarchies. I don't think this nomination has a thorough enough base to justify making such structural changes as have been proposed, and investigations during the discussion seem to support this position. __meco (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from discussion creator. I did some further research into the "events" category tree. it seems to have a fairly robust use at the national level and up, but below that, its not well known, and was poorly implemented and managed. I am tending towards keep at this point, but i want to first see if this is a valid category, from other's perspective, to begin populating. Its of course unbalanced to do this only for California and not other states, but you got to start somewhere.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and California and New York are usually the first states to get started with. __meco (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that as well. I intend to populate this category if its kept (which im sure it will be now), after discussion is closed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep and create and populate similar categories for all 50 states. This is something that I expect raaders will be interested in being able easily navigate to. Hmains (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is now part of a stracture that has subcats for most if not all states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in other words i Withdraw my nomination. thanks for the help in understanding and better implementing this category tree. i will shortly begin searching for cats to place in this, or to create.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2012 (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 to 'Japanese' to match stub cat siblings in other countries, and the case of culture and music the maincat name. Also, sounds more natural. Qetuth (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this clearly indicates this is about the country, not the language, or the ethnic group. Japanese-language music is created in places outside Japan, and Japanese gardens exist in many places outside Japan. The culture of Little Tokyos is not about Japan either. So, unless the scope of these stub types is changed, they should not be renamed. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken for gardens, but for the other three this creates a mismatch between them and their parent categories: Category:Japanese music, Category:Japanese culture, and Category:Albums by Japanese artists. Should those be renamed instead? Not to mention every other Fooian music and music stub category. Convention in the existing music category appears to be that 'Fooian' refers to the country and 'Fooian-language' refers to the language. --Qetuth (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should not be ambiguous, if they are ambiguously named, they will collect things not concerning the subject at hand. All fooian categories should be renamed for clarity (such as fooian-national culture instead of fooian-culture, because of fooian-ethnic culture). Since country stubs usually use the form X-other-stub, instead of Xian-other-stub (like template:japan-sport-stub instead of template:japanese-sport-stub) it would do better to follow X-other-stub instead of Xian-other-stub. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template names are not in question, they are already at {{X-other-stub}} as they should be. Templates also regularly use abbreviations, which category names never do - that is a different naming system altogether. But back to the categories, if you want to suggest changing a naming system used in thousands of categories, I suggest you open a seperate discussion. Wikipedia:Category names#Categories by nationality seems fairly clear on the current system to name these categories (in fact, 2 of the noms could have been speedied). --Qetuth (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose generally with stub names we use simple forms of the country name, so keep as is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2012 (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: Both this and its only parent Category:Aircraft component stubs are under the usual size used to justify a seperate stub category (50-60) - there are only 70 articles between the two categories, so upmerging seems rasonable. --Qetuth (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very useful task force maintenance category highlighting articles that need expansion. There are actually 264 aero engine stub articles (see Category:Stub-Class aircraft engine articles), the category proposed for deletion refers only to articles that have been templated as stubs. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Run a project well, deal with the stubs, have some seagull editor flit past and delete the workflow categories. Just what value does that bring to the project? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this category provides value for those of us working on these articles. It would be better to add the articles that should be tagged as stubs, rather than deleting the category. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per above. --Qetuth (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2012 (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: category is for theatres, not the general world of filmmaking. other regions in india employ "cinemas in foo" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom, and per similar categories in other countries. --Qetuth (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2012 (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: Created to be a parent of Category:Soviet rowing Olympic medalist stubs, but there is only a single member of Category:Soviet rowers who is mentioned as competing for USSR but did not win an Olympic medal. Unlikley to be many more appearing. No reason not to upmerge template and reparent the child cat to the parents as before. Qetuth (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unneccesary level of stub categorization at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2012 (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 to merge - jc37 05:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: is there a difference? this one seems to have a less formal name, and is not as old, and less populated. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Film studios should, by its descriptive text, contain buildings/facilities, rather than the companies that use them, although in some cases the terms will be interchangable when a company and its primary studio share a name/article. --Qetuth (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Against – There is some overlap between the two, but one is for the physical structures and the other corporate entities. The major Hollywood studios are both, but there are many that are one or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not change Instead clarify the contents of each category to be production companies versus produciton facilities by adding a clear purpose and checking that each article is in the correct category. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was the editor that created the category. The category Film Studios had a series of categories within it for studios in various countries but the USA was missing yet constituted a majority of the Film Studio entries. It was created as essentially a clean up exercise moving existing articles to a country sub category. The description I put on the category was clearly not adequate and some of the articles should never have been in the Film Studio category in the first place. If the category goes then a similar exercise will need to be done to all the Film Studios by country categories. Malcolma (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am not seeing how a film studio is ever going to be anything other than a film production company. Having these two categories is just drawing too fine a distinction where none is really justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same thing. Studios are production facilities and many production companies don't have their own production facilities. By the same token there are many independent studios around that don't produce their own films and just lease their facilities to production companies. The best known example of such an arrangement (although a British one) would be Eon Productions that rents a stage at Pinewood Studios for the James Bond films. Betty Logan (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2012 (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.
