Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Category:European people by ethnic or national origin[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry. Not a "by continent" naming convention. There are not so many countries that they need to be divided by continent, nor do continents need to be sorted by ethnicity. Adds nothing to navigation.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (WP:OTHERSTUFF) I should have known there were more of these recent 2008 Mayumashu created landmines sitting around. Oh well, another category, another CfD for another day. Let's worry about this one for now.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate as per Category:African people by ethnic or national origin Mayumashu (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add the appropriate subcategories. DGG (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; OCAT by unnecessary race/ethnic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Subcategories exist, and they just need to be organized within this structure and populated to serve as an effective aid to navigation by a strong defining characteristic. Despite the claims of OCAT, there is a rather clear defining connection between ethnicity and national origin within any given country. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both -- The first is a legitmate parent (but should normally only contain subcategories), but needs to be better populated. The second ought in theory primarily to be a parent for expatriate Vietnamese categories in various countries, but there seem to be too few notable people of Vietnamese descent in Europe to warrnat having more than a French subcategory: the finnish one might usefully be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 1 July 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:Melodifestivalen songs of 2005[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 to Category:Melodifestivalen songs. --Xdamrtalk 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Melodifestivalen songs of 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Merge to Category:Melodifestivalen songs. A two entry category that is composed of songs that were candidates to represent Sweden in an international competition. All 45 Some of the songs are included in the main article. If the starting comments are favirable, I'll add the remaining like categories, there is a large number of these, all are small. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries – what are these 45 songs and which is the 'main article' (there are far more articles than one would hope)? Is the criterion any (notable) song that was entered into Melodifestivalen 2005? Eg why is Alcastar not there? I suppose I could see what other countries do re Eurovision contenders ... Occuli (talk) 20:12, 28 June 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:TV Tic-tac-toe[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, after upmerging contents to Category:Tic-tac-toe. All are already in appropriate subcategories of Category:Game shows. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:TV Tic-tac-toe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename - Nominated once previously with no consensus. The existing name is awkward, so if retained it should be renamed. I suggest Category:Tic-tac-toe television programs to align with the similar Category:Poker television programs and Category:Blackjack television programs. If this is deleted I'm fine with that too. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's Tic-Tac-Dough, Hollywood Squares, and… a pricing game on TPIR? Not enough for a category, no likely chance of expansion given the move back to dumb luck based games á la Deal or No Deal and stripped down quizzers á la Million Dollar Password. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The format of the program is a clear defining characteristic of these programs. The popularity of the format makes it likely that there will be more such programs in the future as well as others outside the United States that may have been missed. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parent Category:Tic-tac-toe. Such sub-categorization is unnecessary and the gameshows are variations of the game. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 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:Blur[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Blur to Category:Blur (band)
Nominator's rationale: Per the ambiguous Blur and Blur (band). Category names should never be more ambiguous than article names. Occuli (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To avoid ambiguity. — Σxplicit 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with arguments above and per numerous precedents. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. There's no possible confusion here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:11, 4 July 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:Queen (band)[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: Do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Queen (band) to Category:Queen
Nominator's rationale: Although the band's article is disambiguated to Queen (band), its category needn't be. For example: Blur (band) and Category:Blur. indopug (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – obviously, per the very ambiguous Queen, and I will nominate Blur asap. Occuli (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Occuli. No need to repeat here the confusion of a British MP visiting Argentina who accepted an invite to address the "Queen Appreciation Society". Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree per numerous precedents. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose name change per the two previous discussions on the topic. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Queen has many meanings - Elizabeth II has one notion of it, the LGBT community has another, and neither is likely Freddie M & company. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename In addition to the general rule that category titles should match those of the parent article, the current name makes it absolutely clear as to what's included while proposed rename makes it completely ambiguous. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here there is reasonable confusion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:12, 4 July 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:Belarusian Polish people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Belarusian Polish people to Category:Polish people of Belarusian descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match others in Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin, according to the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You always say that in these cases, and are always wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 1 July 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:Country singles with RIAA gold certification[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: Renamed with an assist from Jéské Couriano. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Country singles with RIAA gold certification to Category:Country singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, someone already created the renamed category, rather than let this process complete. Just a note of thought, though - no song should be added to these "gold" and "platinum" certification categories without it being properly sourced in the article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 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:People from Sheffield (district)[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 all to Category:People from Sheffield. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Sheffield (district) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People from Attercliffe
Category:People from Beighton
Category:People from Broomhill
Category:People from Burngreave
Category:People from Chapeltown, Sheffield
Category:People from Crookes
Category:People from Darnall
Category:People from Ecclesall
Category:People from Ecclesfield
Category:People from Handsworth, South Yorkshire
Category:People from High Green
Category:People from Hillsborough
Category:People from Norton, South Yorkshire
Category:People from Stannington
Category:People from Stocksbridge
Category:People from Wadsley
Category:People from Woodhouse
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:People from Sheffield (district); merge subcats into Category:People from Sheffield. Someone from Sheffield will usually have lived in many sub-areas; being born in a particular area is not defining; 'from Sheffield' is enough; Sheffield (district) is a redirect to Sheffield. Occuli (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- These are mostly suburbs of the present city of Sheffield. Most were in the ancient parish of Sheffield (which was a large one. One might possibly have a category for people living in the original Sheffield settlement (ie the present city centre), but I doubt it is worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 1 July 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:English-language websites[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English-language websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Far too broad. Otterathome (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I fully agree but then I thought the same about Category:English-language films. Occuli (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nominator. But this argument is a sharp knive... Debresser (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the website - and if there is a single word of English on an otherwise non-English website they get in here (per the uselessly lax standard in films)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 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:Songs written by Mark Markwell[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 and leave redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Songs written by Mark Markwell to Category:Songs written by Hugo Peretti and Luigi Creatore
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Mark Markwell is the pen name of Peretti & Creatore Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – leave as a category redirect? Occuli (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and leave as a category redirect, since Mark Markwell was a pen name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category redirect sounds good to me. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:00, 28 June 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:Hit songs written by Eric Carmen[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 (and yes, the nominated category will be deleted, which I add just to avoid confusion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming deleting Category:Hit songs written by Eric Carmen to Category:Songs written by Eric Carmen
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To remove the "weasel" word "hit". On pasting here I found that the same creator had also created the new cat with text added songs. The target category is now correct and the "Hits" category is empty. Richhoncho (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the proposal is "merge"? I agree with merging. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would think the word "hit" in this context is a weasel word and I wouldn't want too many weasels running through WP. So I would still suggest delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge which I think is what the nom intends. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 1 July 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:Federal preemption law (United States)[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 to Category:United States federal preemption law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Federal preemption law (United States) to Category:Federal preemption law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was recently brought to speedy renaming, at which point a discussion got started, but did not finish before the category was speedy renamed as originally proposed, apparently by accident: [1] [2] The previous discussion is copied here, behind the cut.--chaser (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
previous discussion
    • I don't object to renaming, but I have my own idea about it. The parenthetical disambiguation is not necessary, so we don't need either "(US)" or "(United States)". Perusing preemption and linked articles, it appears that there is nothing else that would conflict with a category name of "federal preemption" or "federal preemption law". There seems to be no strong preference for either of those.--chaser (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you want to take this to a full CfD discussion? I'm up for it, if you don't mind. I just hate seeing "US" as an initialism, it bugs the crap out of me. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 07:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether they have laws but whether they enjoy sufficient concurrent jurisdiction with their federal governments and a tradition of local government that federal law would preempt. There is nothing on Wikipedia yet about preemption by other countries, so unless someone has a reliable external source, it's just guessing at this point to say other countries have a significant body of preemption law.--chaser (talk) 05:21, 3 July 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:Shuttlecock[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shuttlecock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article, unlikely to expand. Upmerge to Category:Badminton.MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 28 June 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:Number-one singles in the Netherlands[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles in the Netherlands to Category:Dutch Top 40 number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: The parent article of this category refers to the music charts in the Netherlands, that being the Dutch Top 40. This category should be renamed to match that article. — Σxplicit 03:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ever-growing precedent to rename categories by the chart name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with both previous editors. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 28 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_28&oldid=1144513666"