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 08:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 14 December 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge/delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I suggest this category is too small to be necessary or desirable at this time. At the time of nomination, it contained only Eastland Company. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Poland – United Kingdom relations. While the Eastland Company was an English Company, for most of the time of its existence, Scotland and Ireland had no separate diplomatic relations with any one. Under the British constitution, foreign relations are part of the Royal Prerogative. The three kingdoms had a single monarch and all ambassadors were his (or her) representative, hence representing the monarch of them all. Accordingly in practice, the merge target is identical to the category being discussed. I know about this, because in recent months I have worked on improving many of the lists of British ambassadors, envoys-extraordinary, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with Peter here, as the Scottish trading links were established prior to the Union of the Crowns: see [1] and the reference at Economy_of_Scotland#Textiles for example. I'd favour retaining the current English category and hope it can be joined by others in time, as articles mature. AllyD (talk)
Comment -- The presence of Sottish peddlars in Poland was so prevalent that the Polish word for a peddlar is derieved from that for a Scot. I was haowever primarily referring to diplomatic relations, which is what categories of this kind tend to be about. Nevertheless, I agree that trade relations are also relevant. What I had in mind was that this is not a case where the category really needs to be split between the nations of the UK. Scottish trade relations with Poland, in my opinion, would be one that could properly be categorised in the (UK) parent category. That is not intended as an insult to Scotland, or to deny its pre-1603 (or pre-1707) status, but a matter of practicality in not having a lot of minute categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the Polish word for "stingy" that derives from Scots? But obviously related to the trading process anyway, so no matter! Peter and I are obviously placing different interpretations on the word "relations": him diplomatic and me commerce, which rather indicates the limitation of the current category name - see below. AllyD (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Poland – United Kingdom relations. There don't appear to be any Scot/Pole or Welsh/Pole articles as yet so no need for splitting (and ones pre-1800 or whenever would not be correctly in any UK parent category). Occuli (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking further at the sole article and its other categories, I see it is under Category:Chartered companies. In time, I'd like to see that subcategorising in two directions, by trading power and the targets of their activity (so gathering all English or Dutch companies to one side; gathering all East India companies to the other). But for the moment, I now agree this one is superfluous (and wouldn't want to see it placed in an untimely "United Kingdom" category). AllyD (talk) 15:55, 20 December 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.
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. Although there was no further discussion after the nomination, there's a clear precedent against categories of this type — so, invoking the WP:SNOW principle, there's no point in relisting. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of performer by performance. We don't categorize actors by their appearance in specific films or TV series. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:49, 13 December 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.
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. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of performer by performance. We don't categorize actors by their appearance in films or TV series. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:45, 13 December 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.
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. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Apart from the name of this category being ambiguous, it is overcategorization by performance. We don't categorize songs by their appearance in films, games, or TV shows. This is categorizing songs by their appearance in Glee (TV series). Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete. My initial knee-jerk reaction was to say "Delete" but on further inspection, there are Wiki cats for Songs from Grease, Songs from High School Musical, Songs from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, etc. That these are all categorized under "Songs from musicals", but some also appear in a "Songs from films" category as well. Granted, those are (all?) original songs, not "covers". I do think the category name is terrible and needs to be changed. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the situation may be somewhat different if the songs are original songs to a film or TV series, but as you say these are just songs that have appeared in the TV series as "covers", essentially. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These songs are not defined by being used in Glee, as they would be if they were original songs in a movie, play or television series. Alansohn (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being covered by Glee is not a defining characteristic of these songs. List of songs in Glee is the right way to do this. Maralia (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't consider myself active enough in this community to interfere in a vote, but I would agree with Maralia above. A list is more appropriate.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I know you just wanted to use that particular felicitous phrase? Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:48, 21 December 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.
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 had been bloated with addition of articles on products mentioned in the movie, pieces of music in the movie, etc. Once these were deleted, the remaining articles fit more reasonably in Category:Jean Shepherd and its subcat, making this category basically useless. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait four days and speedy it as empty. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 13 December 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.
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.
Rename per nomiantor, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the greater importance of the previous KPD and this party's origin in a minor name rearrangement to avoid a banning order (reflected in the disambiguation cross-references on the German Communist Party page), is there merit in retaining initials in the renaming for example Category:German Communist Party (DKP) members to be clear which party's membership is meant? AllyD (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article German Communist Party. The various KPDs are rendered "Communist Party of Germany" in English.- choster 04:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but use "politicians", rather than "members", which has become standard usage. If someone is a non-politician member of a party, it would usually be overcategorization to categorize them by political party membership. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well—maybe we should start. Either way, the abbreviation is no good for the category name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:49, 21 December 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.
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: No reason to separate templates by their technical components, because that is 1. not essential 2. subject to change. The one template that was moved here today can be moved back to the parent Category:Comics templates. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J Greb is one of the people with the best overview of the comics templates categories, so I'm happy to go along with point 1) if he thinks this has been replaced and it seems 2) might be something that would be worth considering - relist with all the amboxes, there are only about 3 or 4 pages in as many categories and there doesn't seem much need for them (unless there are a lot of other things that could be in this area that are currently not). (Emperor (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
On the "Comic book" category that has been added - to be honest, that one was miss-named off the hop and was emptied into the "Comics" one. - J Greb (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from what J Greb says these categories can (have been?) replaced and one is empty. It is a under-used structure and I think can be safely cleaned away. (Emperor (talk) 02:28, 18 December 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.
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, no prejudice against subsequent renaming in the other direction. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge (or reverse merge). Both categories contain the LGBT rights by year series, only one is needed. The parents of both should be added to whichever is kept. Tim! (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I prefer the convention where 'Category:Foo by year' is a subcat scheme (which this is not). Occuli (talk) 13:37, 13 December 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.
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:withdrawn. Wow, I suck at these things. — ξxplicit 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is for Irish dance -i.e., specific styles of dance as associated with Irish dancing tradition. It is not synonymous with dance in Ireland (in fact, the World Irish Dance Association is based in the Netherlands! I suspect that the categories for Cuban dance and South Korean dance may be similar, especially the Cuban one. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree with this assessment, so I've brought these nominations to full discussion. If a dance is specifically associated to a certain region as pointed out above, it seems a subcategory would seem more appropriate. — ξxplicit 06:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Grutness is correct re Ireland/Irish, and I am sure Cuban Dance is a style (or collection of styles); I have no info on Korean Dance. (I am assuming the usual laws of logic apply to dance, unlike say in the Wine categories, where inebriation might be a factor.) Occuli (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Irish dance, which refers to a style, not a location. I do not know about the rest, but I suspect that the same considerations may apply. I do not like "Irish dances", since "dance" is the appropriate collective noun. If necessary, the category should be provided with a short introductory note defining its scope, making clear why "ballet in Ireland" would not be an appropriate member. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 13 December 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.
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 10:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To expand acronym and correct capitalization. — ξxplicit 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename: That's a speedy, per #7. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria number seven deals with dash fixes. There is no speedy criteria for expanding acronyms other than for country names (criteria number five). — ξxplicit 04:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, in accordance with guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Previously deleted at CfD 2008/Jan/24; however, the character articles are much better developed now, and the previous outcome should not prejudice this discussion.- choster 18:55, 18 December 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.
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: Redundant. If used it will contain millions of entries. Which namespace is it for? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be some kind of bad joke. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete! Some users may simply wish to label their talk pages as "talk pages". Why is this a joke? This is similar to the Category: Wikipedians. It may be argued that all the userpages can be categorised as Wikipedians, but some may prefer to have that label, while others do not. I like this category.Difu Wu (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All talk pages are clearly recognisable without this. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- every user, article, and category has (or could have) a talk page, so that this is a wholly unnecessary category. Categories are a navigation aid, not a means of bullet-pointing article content. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:59, 13 December 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.
