Category:United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008[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. Kbdank71 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is the only 2008 Senate election with its own subcategory and its entire contents are linked through the main article. Also a small category with little likelihood of expansion (at most there would probably only be one possible additional article, on the upcoming trial, assuming that the main article isn't simply expanded to cover it) Not needed for navigation, also sets a poor precedent of categorizing candidates by election. Given that most elected officials run a number of times in the course of a career, if implemented this could lead to dozens of categories on some candidates' articles. Otto4711 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- too narrow for a category. This is exactly the sort of thing that is tailor-made for a navbox template. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not standard for most elections. Reywas92Talk 04:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and provide navbox (if necessary). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 24 January 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:reverse merge. In other words, the ones being kept will be the ones without "Christian" and with the proper hyphenation. (There are more of these "Christian bishop" categories for other centuries that could be similarly nominated.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question any reason why all the rest of the subcats of Category:Bishops by century aren't being handled here with renames/merges? They are all only Christian. Hmains (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one thing, I didn't know if there would be a preference for "Christian bishops" over "bishops". Also, those would be a pure rename. --Carlaude(talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge, but to the grammatically correct names per previous discussions, that means:
Modified to allow for a reverse merge. I don't really care which at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the addition of "Christian" as bishop is a Christian term. Should we change all the rabbis categories to Jewish rabbis? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not adding or changing any category name... I am just proposing that we get rid of one of these two categories (via merge) that have the same purpose. Either is fine with me-- but I think the "Christian bishops" has been around longer. --Carlaude(talk) 21:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – according to Category:Bishops by religion there are also Category:Raëlian bishops. As there is only one of these it hardly seems worth splitting the entire category tree into two. I would favour a reverse merge, dropping the word 'Christian'. Occuli (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is only one Raëlian bishop in all of Wikipedia (and of duibous notablity) but I would think that is a reason to use use "Christian bishops" (with Raëlian bishops under Category:20th century clergy) Each Christian bishops was named that was largely because it was a subset of Christian clergy. --Carlaude(talk) 21:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Category:Raëlian religious leaders-- but to me even that does not seem all that useful if it has only two people in it, even counting the one bishop-- but it would take a seperate CFD. --Carlaude(talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, preferably to plain "bishops". Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to "Bishops" categories. "Christian" is superfluous since at least 99% will be Christian. Whatever we do "bishops by denomination" categories will be proper subcategories of it. There may be a few minor categories for non-christian bishops, but does that matter? I seem to recall that the French made Vietnamese Buddhists have bishops. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the consensus is there. However someone else needs to close this since I commented above about the form to be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 2 February 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. Kbdank71 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The correct name is object database and hence "object database management system". Johan Natt och Dag (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I expect that 'systems' should be retained as plural since this is a category that includes multiple such systems. Hmains (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw My suggestion is of some reason wrong. I agree with Hmains. It shall remain plural. My actual suggestion did not come through as I expected. I will make a new correct suggestion for which my rational is more understandable. --Johan Natt och Dag (talk) 10:52, 25 January 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, WP:SNOW. Postdlf (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Completely POV and subjective category. Don't know what else to say, really. Culturally centric, too? Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hah, I love the name, but as you say, it's got to go. We deleted another, fundamentally identical category a while back (the name escapes me). Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cringe-inducing category. Might even be speedily deleted per WP:SNOW. --Bonadea (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR, NPOV, and some others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
a) There're varying levels of POV. Cases where even the source culture regards them as weird foods, or where there are multiple sources writing them up as squicky (viz. kazu marzu in NYT, video documentaries, etc), shifts that away towards NPOV land.
b) How about "illegal foods"? Kazu marzu e.g. is an illegal food even in its own region of origin. Sai Emrys¿?✍ 21:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comments, but it further shows how complex this subject is -- which means it's much better suited to an article than a category. I'd really urge you to read the earlier CFD which I linked above. (Note: Sai Emrys (User:Saizai) is the category's creator.) Cgingold (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources writing about a particular dish as "squicky", that would be suitable for a section in the article itself. Trying to prove that "the source culture regards them as weird foods" sounds like inherently POV, because it would be necessary to first define the culture, and determine which sources are authoritative of "what the culture thinks". It is also a contradiction in terms: how would a type of food become culture-specific if "the source culture regards [it] as weird"? That is not at all the same thing as "many people who live in the region today have a different perception of the dish compared to earlier generations", which might be the case for a number of foodstuffs around the world. Illegality on the other hand is something that can be sourced. In the case of Casu marzu the article mentions it being illegal in Sardinia. If there are several other kinds of food that are illegal somewhere in the world, there could presumably be an article about it. --Bonadea (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a POV category. It might be nice to listify it. However that would also be a POV subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 24 January 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:no consensus. As more people commented, the fewer categories they were ok with being renamed. The only ones left that had consensus were a few that changed (US) to (U.S.), which had nothing to do with the rationale for the nomination. Kbdank71 15:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These renamings would match the name of the main article. In most of these cases the company was renamed, and the category is currently at the old name. For example, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company was originally the Southern Pacific Railroad, but the original company, which remained as a nonoperating subsidiary, never included many lines, including those in Oregon, Utah, and Nevada, that were operated by the SPTC. NE2 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all EXCEPT - for the ones that would be changed to use non-keyboard characters (en- or em-dashes) in the name. Non-keyboard characters are a barrier to navigation and should not be used in category names, per numerous recent CFDs. Otto4711 (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - so should it be a normal dash or a spaced dash? --NE2 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this rule apply to article names as well? SharkD (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, since redirects work there. Now that Otto mentions it, I vaguely remember that conversation. --NE2 18:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may have been "primarily railroad companies", but they weren't named as such. The Southern Pacific Railroad never entered Utah or Oregon; it's incorrect to place Lucin Cutoff or Oregon Central Railroad in such a category. Your example holds no water, since the LIRR was not named "Long Island Transportation Company". --NE2 08:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportDanTD -- These are railroad/railway categories. Omitting that word and replacing it by the formal name of the operating company makes it less clear what the category is about. If you need to name the company, that can conveniently be done in a short headnote to the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename images differently. We frequently use images of in image categories. Currently the parent image category here is a mix, albeit there is a single exception. Why not use this nomination to start the move to the more common form?
One side note here. We may actually want to keep the old names for these and just change the format. Since the images show the stations and cars with the livery for the older entries, it might be nice to retain that separation.
"Images of foo company" implies to me that the company is the source of the image. Of course the other way is no better; Category:United States government images contains images from, not displaying, the government. --NE2 18:57, 24 January 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. Kbdank71 19:05, 29 January 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. Kbdank71 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - See below. SharkD (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QUERY not all digitised graphics are sprites - eg digitised faces are 3D - ??Carrolljon (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's true. I wonder if making the distinction is important? SharkD (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think digitised sprites would be a 'retro' topic I'd guess, whereas including all digitized graphics include more modern games - eg the ones where it uses a picture of your face and puts it on a 3d character. You might end up with two differnt things in the same cat. Carrolljon (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed my mind and withdraw the proposal. SharkD (talk) 04:18, 27 January 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:listify and delete. Kbdank71 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Slightly less ambiguous title. I.e. doesn't suggest that if you open the box you will find time travel inside. SharkD (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I didn't realize the category was about gameplay elements. SharkD (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - categorizing video games by gameplay features strikes me as a poor standard for categorization. Video games by their nature include any number of gameplay features and categorizing by all of them would lead to category clutter. I'm envisioning Category:Video games featuring magic swords, Category:Video games featuring space travel, etc. and shuddering. Otto4711 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. It seems I missed the entire point of your comment, as well as the category itself. Incidentally, there is in fact already a Category:Space simulators category. SharkD (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with Otto. This is overcategorization. Resolute 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nominator, I now support the counter proposal. SharkD (talk) 04:19, 27 January 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 ot match main article. If it gets renamed to drop the "music", this can always be renamed back. Kbdank71 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only one subcategory of Category:Musical subcultures uses the "music" appellation, and as the only meaning of Grunge appears to refer to the genre of music, perhaps it is the main article that should be renamed.-choster (talk) 19:36, 27 January 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. Kbdank71 15:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category needs to be a bit more descriptive of what exactly is being categorized. "Hidden Camera" is not a proper noun, it's just a descriptive phrase that establishes the central premise of these shows. But they are all "television series", and we should explicitly say so. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - I've added several, but the list on the main article is still much longer. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's an example of a hidden camera film/movie? Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. OK, then rename it. --Tobias Schmidbauer 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was genuinely asking, not trying to make a point. It sounded like you had some examples in mind, but if not, that's fine. I'm not too familiar with the "genre", so there may be something out there I'm not aware of. But I can't think of a hidden camera film off the top of my head. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 27 January 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. Kbdank71 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom. I assume that none of those included is an Indonesian national from West Timor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are all of East Timorese nationality and all have played for East Timor's national football team. All of them play for clubs in Indonesia, however, so it is possible that there was some confusion or belief by the creator that people can be "Timorese" (i.e. from the island in Indonesia) but not East Timorese (if one believes that Indonesia has a legitimate claim on the whole island, e.g.). Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:41, 25 January 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.
