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) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just one slight problem: there's already a full-blown article with that name. Perhaps a merger is in order. Cgingold (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that after I made the nomination and was trying to figure out what this meant should be done. Neither article is well-referenced, and the category one appears to be pretty much a non-wikified cut and paste of the article, so I'm fine with a straight delete in this case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (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.
Creator comment I don't disagree, however please see this discussion on my talk page and the other half on the original commentor's talk page. Apparently there aren't enough to 'justify' state specific so I feel as if we're going round and round in circles on this absent any policy. As I said to the original commentor, state/small region is fine with me. Big region i.e. East doesn't help navigation. There are still a number to be classified from CM in the US and those that aren't yet categorized as I didn't have time to finish this week. Am happy to go wih consensus, so long as consensus doesn't change daily TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically they can stay in the main category. If there are several from one state, you can create a state category. Once a reasonable number of states have categories, then you can add the others since it is clear that there is a series. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on upmerge. There are a significant number of Children's musuems in the United States, many of which are not yet in the category. I think we do need sub-categories for state (keep in mind this discussion where consensus seems to be favoring keeping New York City). The issue here is there is no long-lasting consensus and it seems to change on a whim. I think US is far too broad of a category for useful categorization. Some states might not support, but you don't appear to want the regional. On the other hand, some think per city is fine and per state for New York was too broad. Off hand there are a number of states with more than enough: North Carolina, California and New York. Even above you said "If there are several from one state, you can create a state category. " Now you appear to be saying the opposite. I'm confused TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be upmerged otherwise they will not be in any children's museum category. There is clearly a long lasting consensus as it applies to categories in general. Please don't confuse comments on your talk page as consensus. I'll go out on a limb here. If you wanted to add the children's museums by state to these articles, there will probably not be much comment from here especially if you make Category:Children's museums in the United States a child of Category:Categories by state of the United States after splitting these out into state subcats. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK now I'm just confused. They're currently subcats of Children's museums in the United States, or at least they appear to be. What does upmerging do differently? I think we're having a terminology difference here. Also the CM in New York City is a discussion here, not talk page consensus. Talk page discussions seem to lead to categories being brought here...so that's why it would help to have a consensus of what is accepted. At least that's where I'm confused TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not proposing to eliminate the state cats but rather re-classify? I think I misunderstood what upmerge was, in which case my oppose above isn't an oppose TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The upmerge would place them in Category:Children's museums in the United States in order to keep them in a children's museum category. That would be preferred to a delete. However, if they were all put in a state category for children's museums, then a delete would be the preferred action. I'm OK with either solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (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:One Man Army and the Undead Quartet albums[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:keep. Black Falcon(Talk) 22:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has two albums in it which is hardly helpful. Not a good category. Delete. Undeath (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:ALBUM#Categories - Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future).Lugnuts (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be a way to take a new look at that policy? I just think it to be a bit worthless to have a category with only one album in it. It poses no help at all nor any educational value. Undeath (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More could be released, for categorization purposes this is not relevant. Assume blind faith. — CharlotteWebb 15:22, 16 April 2008 (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) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single article category, not clear what this even is. If it is retained, it should at least be renamed "... fellows" for pluralization. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a category for fellows of the Sterling Research Fellowship at Yale but, given that the fellowship doesn't have an article at present there certainly isn't a need for the category at this time. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (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. — CharlotteWebb 16:16, 16 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Change requested per naming conventions; The Bellamy Brothers use "The" on their albums and have always been credited as "The Bellamy Brothers" on the charts; therefore, this category should be moved to reflect that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:46, 13 April 2008 (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) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - category only contains one article (I redirected the other it had) and does not actually categorize anything. RedPhoenix (Talk) 16:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Red Phoenix. Not a good category with only one article. Undeath (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2008 (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 all. Kbdank71 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:ZH and WP:NC-ZH, Hanyu Pinyin is preferred. The apostrophe is Wade-Giles romanization. Bertport (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I'm all for consistency in Romanization/Latinization. Also, "Patriarchs" should be lower case. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Zen is the Japanese descendent of Chan. They do not have the same meaning. Neither should be deleted as duplicate of the other. Chinese Chan Buddhists would object to being called Zen Buddhists, and vice versa.Bertport (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2008 (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:Israeli footballers currently playing abroad[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. Kbdank71 14:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to fit already existing list of category pages under Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality, will require linking pages for former expatriate players to the page however. (no need to keep separate 'current' and former members of a list on a category page and to do so is not the convention on wikip) Mayumashu (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and other expatriate categories, how long does a footballer have to play abroad to qualify, and didn't some Israeli teams play in Cyprus during some recent war/insurgency going on in Israel? Not a meaningful distinction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hard-to-maintain "current" category. Like Carlossuarez46, I would also tend to side with deleting of expatriate categories that don't require currency. The immigrants/emigrants categories should be enough and used for those who make a permanent move. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We don't (or shouldn't) categorize by currency, per WP:NCCAT#Occupation. That is what wikinews is for. Playing for teams outside one's home country can be notable, and that hasn't seemed to be addressed by the delete proponents. In Japan, much was made when Nakata started playing in Italy, and the perception that some barriers were broken by Troussier's (national coach at the time) encouragement for more players to leave Japan. Japanese sports websites still go to great lengths to document the current crop of players in Europe, etc. Neier (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category:Expatriate footballers is for footballers who are or have been under contract by professional teams outside their country of origin. In practice there is no difficulty deciding membership. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. In Europe a great many footballers play in countries other than that of their birth, but remain eligible to play for that country. This is a legitimate category, which may well be of interest to those interested in football (soccer for those in USA), though not to me personally. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (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.
