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: Closed by nominator for consolidation with other, similar category renames. New entry is here. Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. --Brad (talk) 17:06, 13 July 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 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, as the existence/non-existence of historic counties seems to be a controversial issue on Wikipedia.
The category title presupposes that the Local Government Act 1972 transferred parts of Berkshire to Oxfordshire, rather than transferring the ceremonial functions from parts of the historic county of Berkshire to the new non-metropolitan county of Oxfordshire, this area being preserved by the creation of ceremonial counties by the Lieutenancy Act 1997.
One must also assume that the title refers purely to ceremonial Berkshire; were it to refer instead to non-metropolitan Berkshire, the whole of "Berkshire" would fall under the category, due it its abolition in 1998. —Wereon (talk) 22:37, 12 July 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:keep. Kbdank71 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how do you even type that? I thought the TM MOS discouraged use of special typography. 70.55.84.243 (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I didn't type it, actually - I copied and pasted. Wikipedia:Manual of Style; do you have a more particular citation? I know that there is an ASCII preference, but if the name of the band is "54•40" then the name is "54•40." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTMAvoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love")70.55.87.226 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or better rename to 54 space 40 - per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) (WP:MOSTM). Name of category and article should be "54 40" as it is derrived from "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" and the • is decorrative, but the current situation is also better than the suggested. gidonb (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever is preferable between "54-40" and "54 40" to avoid the atypical character. Otto4711 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The dot is a logo design choice. It isn't in any way mandatory to render the band's name that way in text. And for the same reason, the article shouldn't have been moved to 54•40, either. Even the band themselves use either "54-40" or "5440" in text portions of their own website, which absolutely puts paid to any notion that we're under any sort of obligation to use a centred ASCII dot. Leave the category as is, and move the article back to its former title. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose & move article back to prior title. What are the majority of users going to type when they want to search for 54-40? I'm fairly sure it isn't 54•40. If one performs a google search for '"54•40" -wiki', even the official sites title is 54-40 (although they use 54•40 w/i the site), they also use the "Official site of Canadian Rockers 54 40", and also "Announcing Northern Soul, the new album from 54-40". What about searching Canadian media? See [1], as well as [2], [3] and [4].
Oppose, and revert page move. A decorative symbol which is difficult to type, and unknown to most casual web surfers, should not be used as part of a title for an article, template, or category. At best, maintain a redirect from such a title to the article, and we may also consider a category redirect (from the proposed cat to the current cat). Mindmatrix 13:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Though I favour using the dot whenever feasible, I agree with Bearcat, DigitalC, and Mindmatrix that the most useful category naming and page title is 54-40. The text within the article itself can use the dot. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:25, 16 July 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. Kbdank71 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:DeleteIt was created as part of a template, possible inadvertently. The cat is redundant since all the articles are in Category:Articles to be split. It is also a needless level of category hierarchy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:19, 12 July 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the other categories in the hierarchy which use Royal Artillery not British. Having this category named differently is confusing when coming across it. Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it also reduces the likelihood of the likes of Vidor being placed in such a category. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 14 July 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:No Consensus -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At present there are three types of style guidelines: (i) pages that are identified as "English Wikipedia style guideline" (e.g., Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) and pages that are identified as "part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style". Of the Manual of Style (MoS) pages, there are two types: (ii) general application MoS pages such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) and (iii) specialized application MoS pages such as "Manual of Style (mathematics)". The present categories do not allow for distinguishing the three types of style guidelines. Category:General style guidelines is a good start, but may be confused with the article space category Category:Style guides. Template:Subcat guideline already populates Category:Wikipedia style guidelines with "English Wikipedia style guideline". My proposal:
Delete "Category:General style guidelines"
Populate "Category:Wikipedia MoS general guidelines" with general application MoS pages (e.g., capital letters)
Populate "Category:Wikipedia MoS specialized guidelines" with specialized application MoS pages (e.g, mathematics)
Neutral I created and populated the cat a couple of months ago, and haven't had any complaints about the usefulness, meaning or name of the cat until now. Still, if BBB wants to rename it to "Wikipedia MoS general guidelines" and tweak the contents, my reaction is that the more people we have actively working on style guidelines, the better. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, at least with "MoS" in the cat names. It is not obvious what that stands for. Also, it's not clear what would distinguish "general" from "specialized" guidelines. I haven't noticed that the MoS makes that distinction. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:52, 23 July 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:no consensus. Kbdank71 13:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'by city in country' naming pattern conventional to reflect that not everyone of or from a city is a citizen of the country the city is situated in Mayumashu (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you suggest is not standard practice - Fooian people list non-nationals (ie. expats) as well as nationals Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. 'Booian people' is a convenient naming pattern as it is not a strict equivalent of 'Citizens of Booia', meaning that both citizens of Booia and non-citizens of Booia yet of Booia (in some manner, ie. foreign expats) can be included. Category:People by nationality would need to be changed however, wouldn t it, to Category:People by country to maintain this inclusiveness that far down the category page umbrella Mayumashu (talk) 03:37, 15 July 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: There appears to be no material to be linked here, or in the article, or in the template -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the template is an adequate navigation tool for the subject. If retained it should be reanmed to Category:Harvest (band) to match article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I appreciate the notification of the CFD. I don't have time right now to look up all the criteria for why or why not the category should be kept. I thought the category useful when I created it. I will be fine with consensus on this CFD. Thank you, Jamie L.talk 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now due to lack of content to justify a category. gidonb (talk) 11:20, 15 July 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:speedy delete, author's request (G7). BencherliteTalk 09:16, 12 July 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.
Nominator's rationale: While certainly some alt. songs with articles aren't singles, it would be confusing to distinguish the two, and not necessary to do so. Also, there are not any specific music genre "singles" categories (that I know of). The songs category should suffice here. Wolfer68 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No need for distinguishing between singles and songs. This category could be reused for unmarried fans of alternative rock ;-) gidonb (talk) 05:07, 12 July 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: Closed by nominator for consolidation with other, similar category renames. New entry is here. Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:Ships naming practices, should fit with the rest of the subcategories in the main cat. Parsecboy (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Standardizing. gidonb (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom --Brad (talk) 21:47, 12 July 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: Closed for consolidation with other similar category renames. See discussion here. Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment in the related CfD entry above. Parsecboy (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Thanks for the trouble, Bellhalla! gidonb (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming - Standardization Mastrchf (t/c) 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. --Brad (talk) 21:48, 12 July 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:no consensus. the wub"?!" 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The only attribute in common between all the persons in this category is a fluke of usage. It is similar to having a category for persons with first and last names beginning with the same letter. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The phenomenon of mononymous personal names is of intrinsic interest and of potential usefulness in research. An individual's use of a mononym, or a community's use of one for him, is a matter of choice, not chance, and says something about the individual and/or the community. This category is as legitimate as any other on the Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the category's contents as it stands will dispatch all such illusions. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is not compelling, and since I feel that race/ethnicity is generally overcategorized on WP that particular example isn't particularly compelling to me personally either. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (I expect one exists) andDelete per nom & Otto. I'm not sure what Renaissance artists, rappers & Brazilian footballers really have in common. Yes, I see we have List of pseudonyms and the gigantic List of one-word stage names. The category is rather tiny in comparison anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the vast majority of people in ancient and early medieval societies being mononymous, it just isn't defining. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Otto. WP:OC has a chapter on "unrelated subjects with shared names" (shortcut WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES); these are unrelated subjects with shared name characteristics. It is OK for a list. gidonb (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNeutral [changed to Keep - see below]. I created the category after seeing the Talk:Mononymous persons#"Category:Mononymous persons"? suggestion. I was initially wholly in favour of it, but that was before I saw the humongous List of one-word stage names, finding that I was reluctant to add even 5% of them, if that. The category which would suit me would be high-maintenance, to say the least, because fans of every two-bit brief culture icon would persist in adding their faves. — Athaenara ✉ 06:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagined that much. Therefore (plus that I do not see any important information about to get lost) I suggest deleting rather than listifying. On the other hand, if the list existed I guess that would be OK. gidonb (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons as Otto4711 (checking they are lall in the list). I note that several of the people such as Galileo and Michelangelo appear in the category with multiple names. Stage names such as Madonna, Prince, etc are merely a brand. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I wonder how this category is more of an example of "overcategorization" or of listing "coincidences" than is "Category:Deaths by tuberculosis"? And, in a non-paper encyclopedia, is it really necessary to ration category presentation space? Nihil novi (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response While I have no substantive response to your first point, there is such a thing as overcategorization even though Wikipedia is made up of electrons instead of pulp. Humans read it, so it is not advisable to have every conceivable category for an article. E.g. see Hank AaronWinston Churchill and how annoying it is to figure out which categories he is in presently. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He did have an extensive career, and scholars may find the categorizations helpful. Thanks for your comments! Nihil novi (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...utterly trivial coincident fluff..Modernist (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not a meaningful basis for categorization. --Russ(talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also includes examples which don't qualify as Mononymous persons Jdrewitt (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mononymous people are real. Many of the above delete !votes all make the claim that if a person has two given names they cannot be a mononymous person. This understanding is utterly incorrect. Suharto, for example is very clearly in this category. This is not "a quirky but trivial characteristic" like "peanut butter eaters" or people named Smith, but a useful way of allowing users to navigate and find mononymous people. I despair at the delete mentality on display here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is being mononymous non-trivial, but having the last name Smith trivial? If anything, it would seem like having the same last name is meaningful, because it denotes some kind of common ancestry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not akin to having the same surname; notable people with mononymous names are a finite and distinguishable category, and collating them in a category is useful, interesting, and encyclopedic. I found this CFD because I saw the category on Ronaldinho's article and clicked on the category to see just how many monomymous people there are. Neıl☄ 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find having a mononymous name sufficiently characteristic and significant to warrant categorizing. __meco (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Persuaded by thoughtful observations by other editors who are in favour of keeping the category; changed from "Neutral" above. — Athaenara ✉ 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many famous people are known by one name. It's a distinguishable category. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Deletion rationale seems largely like another case of confusing WP:NOTABILITY with "WP:PROFUNDITY"--aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it's not of earth-shattering significance. (You can always use your user pages to list articles that meet WP:ILIKEIT, by the way.) This category is not comparable to "a category for persons with first and last names beginning with the same letter," because no one cares if, say, Steven Spielberg's or Jesse Jackson's names happen to be alliterative, and people rarely change their names for the purpose of making them that way. But the fact that Madonna is just "Madonna," or that Cher is just "Cher," raises eyebrows. People use these sorts of names deliberately, and other people notice when they do. Regardless of whether it is culturally desirable, it is culturally visible enough to be of potential research interest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I don't read any reason in the above entries that is sufficient to knock this category out of Wikipedia. It is a good way to link persons who have a common characteristic. Raymondwinn (talk) 11:26, 20 July 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.
