Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 29

< August 28	August 30 >

August 29[edit]

Category:Azerbaijani DJs[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: speedy delete (criterion C1: category empty for 4 days). The article mentioned in the nomination was deleted on 24 August 2009 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ eXe), so it has been more than 4 days that the category has been unpopulated. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. The only article that was in it, was deleted. Lida Vorig (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy then. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know how. :) Lida Vorig (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2009 (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:April Fool's Day 2006[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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 08:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:April Fool's Day 2006 to Category:Wikipedia humor

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense to Category:Wikipedia humor

Nominator's rationale: I see no benefits inherent in trying to organize humor on Wikipedia by context. The first category has a title (it should be "Fools'", not "Fool's", by the way) that suggests that the category contains articles, similar to Category:April Fools' Day. The second category references a defunct Wikipedia page (BJAODN was mostly deleted and its remnants moved to Wikipedia:Silly Things per this MfD) and contains mostly April Fools'-related stuff. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Outdated category can only be salvaged by merging as per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP BJAAODN / Delete AFD 2006 The BJAODN tracks a well-defined subject that has remained in use in Wikipedia, while the AFD 2006 does not. Alansohn (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know whether I agree that BJAODN was ever well-defined, but the BJAODN category currently contains mostly April Fools'-related content (maybe it contained more BJAODN-specific content before the MfD). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:14, 5 September 2009 (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:Military units and formations of the North Korean Army[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 Category:Military units and formations of the North Korean Army to Category:Military units and formations of the Korean People's Army Ground Force. --Xdamr^talk 08:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military units and formations of the North Korean Army to Category:Military units and formations of the Korean People's Army Ground Force

Nominator's rationale: The armed forces of North Korea are collectively known as the "Korean People's Army". This fact makes "North Korean Army" an ambiguous phrase, since it is not clear whether it refers to the KPA or to the land forces of the KPA, the Korean People's Army Ground Force. Based on the content of this category, I have the impression that it is intended to include ground units and formations of the North Korean military. An alternative option to renaming is to upmerge to Category:Military units and formations of North Korea, which currently contains only this category. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- All the parent categories-- all the way up to the country-- use the term Category:North Korea, not the less common but offical "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or its variantions .^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but "North Korea" is unambiguous, unlike "North Korean Army". How do you feel about the alternative option of merging to Category:Military units and formations of North Korea? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you mean to say "and "North Korea" is unambiguous..."?
  - A merge would also be fine with me but I have no view on the need for the North Korean Army category, only a view on the name format if of such categor(ies) were to stay. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant that while it's true that all of the parent categories use the unofficial, short-form name of the country ("North Korea", which is unambiguous), that does not mean we should do the same for this category because "North Korean Army" is ambiguous. Of course, the poitn is moot if the category is merged... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Rename as Category:Military units and formations of the Korean People's Army, which is both unambiguous and analogous to the very similar Category:Military units and formations of the People's Liberation Army. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Category:Military units and formations of the People's Liberation Army does not mention it nation (China) since it was neither the official Chinese aremy, nor even a official Chinese army. This category should have the standard format name instead, like say, Category:Military units and formations of South Vietnam does. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - People's Liberation Army refers to the currently existing (and quite "official") military of the currently existing, "official" People's Republic of China, as even the most cursory glance at the appropriate page reveals. Accordingly, nearly all articles in Category:Military units and formations of the People's Liberation Army are also currently existing and "official" units. While a standard naming scheme (ie. Category:Military units and formation of the People's Republic of China) would probably be preferable, rejecting the alternative suggestion on the grounds that the PLA or the KPA are somehow "unofficial" is a pretty nonsensical argument. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Military units and formations of North Korea, since there is nothing else in that. If the issue is that their Air Force and Navy are run by the army, they can appear as further subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article and corresponding categories in the parent Category:Army units and formations by country. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2009 (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:Speakers[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 Category:Speakers to Category:Loudspeakers. --Xdamr^talk 13:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Speakers to Category:Loudspeakers

Nominator's rationale: The word "speakers" can refer to people who speak in front of audiences, but the category is about the electromechanical devices that produce sound waves. The word "loudspeakers" is unambiguous. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag the category please!

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to match the main article & other categories in the tree. Wondering how this has managed to survive since 2005, I find it was set up by none other than Kdbank71 after this debate. Those were the days! Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename per nominator. "Speaker" indeed reminds me of people, rather than electronics. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur per nom. ww (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main topic article Loudspeaker. Jafeluv (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article and more clearly describe category contents. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2009 (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:New York Giants field personnel[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 Category:New York Giants field personnel to Category:New York Giants (NL) field personnel. --Xdamr^talk 13:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New York Giants field personnel to Category:New York Giants (baseball) field personnel

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate with the American football team New York Giants Mayumashu (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename after checking whether all are indeed involved with the baseball giants as opposed to the football giants. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did so - they are Mayumashu (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There were two "New York Giants" in baseball. One was the predecessor of the San Francisco Giants. The other was the New York Giants (PL). Should the category make a distinction? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:New York Giants (NL) field personnel per Good Olfactory's suggestion. This is what the players category should have done as well, but I didn't catch it in time. -Dewelar (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I have now listed the players category here. -Dewelar (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dewelar's suggestion to Category:New York Giants (NL) field personnel. I think we need to make the distinction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 2 September 2009 (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:Fruits of the desert[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 Category:Fruits of the desert to Category:Desert fruit. --Xdamr^talk 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fruits of the desert to Category:Desert fruit

Nominator's rationale: For succinctness, and to convert the category from a list category to a topic category, per Category:Fruit. If it is desirable to keep as a list category, then rename to Category:Desert fruits (plural "fruits"). (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom to the singular, otherwise someone will add T. E. Lawrence to it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Fewer words = better. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Desert fruit per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on just a minute The "fruit" in the current name seems to be metaphorical - several of a small sample do not have edible fruit at all - Marsdenia australis (whole plant), Cereus repandus & Wattleseed (seeds), Saguaro (apparently inedible, but useful in other ways). Someone could go through these & weed them out, or the current group could be kept as say Category:Desert crops, or a split be done, but a straight rename of the group to Category:Desert fruit won't be right. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you want useful desert seeds and plants to be listed at the category "Fruits of the desert"? The use of the broader meaning of "fruits", on par with "plant-based bounty", invites misinterpretation. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, please see what I said above! Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - to Category:Desert fruit if it's more practical, about Saguaro, in Mexico its fruits are eaten by Indians.--Jaguarlaser (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2009 (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:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America[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 Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America to Category:Presbyterian universities and colleges. --Xdamr^talk 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow category — there is only one college affiliated with the RPCNA, and there aren't prospects of more coming into existence. One other college (without an article at this point) existed in the mid-19th century, but even if there were an article on it, there would be no need to have a category with only two possible articles. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Presbyterian universities and colleges, rather than delete-- which seems to be Nyttend's wish. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as too small a category. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds reasonable to me, considering the circumstances. You have my blessing! :-P --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2009 (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:Rudimental Percussion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 13:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: old category created 2006, unclear purpose, seems to be no longer needed because navbox Template:Rudimental Percussion largely replaces it and does a better job. Fayenatic (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no longer needed. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article Rudiment sheds some light on the intention of this category. Still I think an upmerge to Category:Percussion is a good idea. Even if kept, the capitalisation should be removed from the second word: Category:Rudimental percussion. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am normally a strong proponent of upmerging, but all the member articles are already in other more specific sub-categories of Percussion, so it is not necessary in this case. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2009 (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:Peer review[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 Category:Peer review to Category:Wikipedia peer review. --Xdamr^talk 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Peer review to Category:Wikipedia peer review

Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it clear that this is a project/administrative category, and also because I wish to create a separate category for peer review in the academic/scientific sense. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, can't imagine why this would be a bad idea, and no good reason to hold up the existence of a category for articles. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." No Peer review content category currently exists, but there is no reason for one not to exist. Jafeluv (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, and in accordance with the cited guideline. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2009 (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:Drum related[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 Category:Drum related to Category:Drumming. --Xdamr^talk 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drum related to Category:Drumming

Nominator's rationale: Better category name. The category Drums would become a sub-cat of this one, rather than a head cat as it is now. Fayenatic (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Great idea. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2009 (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:Chicago White Stockings managers[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 Category:Chicago White Stockings managers to Category:Chicago White Stockings (original) managers. --Xdamr^talk 13:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chicago White Stockings managers to Category:Chicago White Stockings (original) managers

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate, as there have been two Chicago White Stockings 'franchises' Mayumashu (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2009 (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:Lists of ambassadors to the United Nations[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 Category:Lists of ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Lists of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations. --Xdamr^talk 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Lists of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per official terminology and recent changes, to match parent Category:Permanent Representatives to the United Nations. (Ambassadors are only received by heads of state; organizations receive permanent representatives.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support See also my proposal at Wikipedia:Requested Moves to bring the article names into line with the proposed category title. SP-KP (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename in view of the consensus of previous discussions. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to reflect use of proper title for the post. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2009 (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:Current events Canada[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: Relisted for further comment - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 10#Category:Current events Canada --Xdamr^talk 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Current events Canada to Category:Current events in Canada portal or Category:Canada current events portal (not sure if "portal" should be capitalized, as in Category:Canada Portal)

Nominator's rationale: I think we can find a clearer and/or more gramatically-correct title for this category, which seems to be for a sub-portal of Portal:Current events. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The standard is "Portal:Current events/Country", as indeed we have Portal:Current events/Canada. No category needed, nor do other countries have it. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Portal:Current events:Canada - and it's good to keep around for organizational reasons. 76.66.202.213 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category titles should really contain only one colon, which is necessary to identify that the page is in the category namespace—all namespaces, except the article namespace (also known as the "main namespace" or "mainspace"), are identified by a particular prefix. Categories that contain non-mainspace pages do not retain the prefix associated with the namespace of the pages they contain. So, for example, we have Category:Canada Portal and Category:WikiProject Canada, not Category:Portal:Canada and Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:45, 31 August 2009 (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:Astronomy image articles[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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 (merge option)

Merge Category:Astronomy image articles to Category:Astronomy images

Option 2 (rename option)

Rename Category:Astronomy images to Category:Wikipedia astronomy images
Rename Category:Astronomy image articles to Category:Astronomy images

Nominator's rationale: Except for maintenance categories, categories containing articles should not contain the unncessarily self-referential word "article"; this is why we have Category:2009 deaths and not Category:2009 deaths articles.

So, we have two choices: (1) place articles about astronomy-related images and astronomy-related images in the same category, Category:Astronomy images; or (2) place articles about astronomy-related images in Category:Astronomy images and astronomy-related images in Category:Wikipedia astronomy images (per Category:Wikipedia images and Category:Wikipedia images by subject). (Category creators not notified because: bot account, inactive IP account). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how about placing the articles about images into category:images from astronomy or category:images of astronomy ? and the image-file category then gets renamed category:astronomy image files or category:astronomy media files ? 76.66.202.213 (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "astronomy images" is part of an image heirarchy, and is part of the classification of images by discipline, so should definitely be kept around, whatever it's name is. Placing articles into a files category is the wrong thing to do. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep and no merging or renaming into images categories, because this is an article category (just that they are articles about images). Debresser (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The way Wikipedia currently seems to categorize articles (based on the results of various CfDs and Category:Wikipedia images), a category named Foo images would be understood to contain articles about images related to Foo, while a category named Wikipedia Foo images would be understood to contain media files related to Foo. I have never before seen the word "articles" kept in a non-maintenance category. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Category:Wikipedia astronomy images" was created via concensus obtained at CFD, which is why it has a bot as a creator. It's previous name was Category:Astronomical images. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2009 (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:Coatbridge irish[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: Speedy delete as empty - this could have been speedily renamed rather than being brought forward for a full nomination. --Xdamr^talk 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Case of the category was incorrect. Have now created Category:Coatbridge Irish, making this category redundant. Tagishsimon (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename; perhaps this could be speedy renamed? Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy if anything ever were. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speedy merge and delete. I'm not sure whether the target category should be kept or upmerged to Category:People from Coatbridge. There's one non-person member but I have just proposed an article merger for it. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Now an empty catgory. Category:People from Coatbridge would be the appropriate category. If Irish origin was wanted as a category, then a people of Irish descent category should be used as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominated category is empty but I was referring to Category:Coatbridge Irish with a capital I. Following your comment, that will have to be separately nominated, unless this discussion is relisted with that one tagged as well. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (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:Anzac class destroyers[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: Relisted for further comment - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 6#Category:Anzac class destroyers. --Xdamr^talk 13:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anzac class destroyers to Category:Parker class leaders

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring in line with ship class article at Parker class leader. Note: The one reliable source I have access to matches the name of the article and does not mention the Anzac name. Further, the article itself—for what it's worth—specifically calls the "Anzac class" name erroneous. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment shouldn't that be category:Parker class destroyer-leaders like other destroyer subtypes as DEs etc. ? 76.66.202.213 (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article should either say Parker class destroyer leader or Parker class flotilla leader, not leader by itself, or should be renamed Parker class destroyer and rely on the leader quality to be explained in the text. Once that's sorted, this category question will follow in step. Me, I think Parker class destroyer and Category:Parker class destroyer make the better combination, but I'm not elbow deep in naval article organization. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than having the "Parker" in it somewhere, I'm totally open to whatever else it should say. For comparison we have the following with similar Royal Navy classes:
  - For the Faulknor class, identified in the article as "flotilla leaders", we have Faulknor class leader and Category:Faulknor class destroyers
  - For the Thornycroft type, identified in the article as "destroyer leaders", we have Thornycroft type leader and Category:Thornycroft type leaders
  - For the Admiralty type, identified in the article as "destroyer leaders", we have Admiralty type destroyer leader and Category:Admiralty type leader (listed separately at speedy to make it plural)
- For the two Soviet classes identified as "destroyer leaders", we have (supporting your suggestion, Binksternet):
  - Leningrad class destroyer and Category:Leningrad class destroyers
  - Tashkent class destroyer (but no corresponding category, yet)
- — Bellhalla (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha, I thought there would be more uniformity, but there isn't. Clearly, all the categories should hew as closely as possible to the article name of the class of ship. The problem, then, is the wide variance in article names. I'm still a fan of just "destroyer" instead of any kind of this or that leader, but these are your babies, Bellhalla. What do you want for them? Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2009 (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:Old school rappers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. (If any editor wants to listify and needs help identifying the 7 articles that were in the category, please contact me.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization that is also subjective and unclear. Some of the rappers categorized here continued to perform after the "old school hip hop" era. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete. I can just imagine the longterm nonstop arguments about each artist in the category regarding their early style and their later style, with unsolved questions about whether abandoning the old school style at any point takes them out of the category, or whether it stays with them forever once they release one old school song. Too many unanswerable questions. In a list, a sense of time frame can be applied, where editors can agree that some number of releases were old school but not afterward. You can say MC Olde Skoole (1985–1989), or put the active old school years in a column of a table. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per Binksternet. The lead of Old school hip hop makes clear that what is "considered old school" shifts "as we move further away in time." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2009 (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.