Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 23 October 25 >

October 24[edit]

Category:Restaurants in Rutland, Vermont[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 DELETED, G7. Postdlf (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Restaurants in Rutland, Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is too narrow and would lead to thousands of categories for every city globally. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a misuse of category space, as the creator is using it to produce a list of restaurant chains with an establishment in Rutland. The links are not to an article on the particualr restaurant but to one on the whole business, national or international. If this were done for every place where each of them had a restaurant, the result would be that a chain with 1000 restaurants would have 1000+ categories. That would be utterly unmanagemable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to kill them while they are small. Whoever is interested in the anecdote, contact me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:36, 25 October 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.

Trinidad and Tobago[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.

Relisted for further comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Trinidad and Tobago --Xdamrtalk 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian people to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people
Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople
Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians
Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian albums to Category:Trinidad and Tobago albums
Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian styles of music to Category:Trinidad and Tobago styles of music
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming for the country of Trinidad and Tobago, per the parent categories Category:Trinidad and Tobago people and Category:Trinidad and Tobago music. Tassedethe (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the renamings, oppose the mergings (but see suggested alternative). I see no reason why people from Tobago shouldn't have their own category as a subcategory of the T&T ones - it's no more bizarre than, say, having Category:People from Hawaii, Category:People from Tasmania or Category:People from Corsica. Their size, and the analogous category names do, however, suggest that some renaming and upmerging may be in order:

Rename Category:Tobagonian people to Category:People from Tobago
Upmerge Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople and Category:People from Tobago
Upmerge Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians and Category:People from Tobago

Grutness...wha? 23:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nominator and multiiple recent precedent. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the Grutness approach: yes to renamings, but merges not necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 26 October 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.

Patrol vessels, Corvettes, and Frigates by navy[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 Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 22:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming or merging (as appropriate):
Patrol vessels by navy
Category:Royal Australian Navy patrol vessels to Category:Patrol vessels of the Royal Australian Navy
Category:Royal Canadian Navy patrol ships to Category:Patrol vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy
Category:Canadian Forces patrol ships to Category:Patrol vessels of the Canadian Forces
Category:Indian Navy patrol vessels to Category:Patrol vessels of the Indian Navy
Category:Irish Naval Service patrol boats to Category:Patrol vessels of the Irish Naval Service
Category:Royal Navy patrol boats to Category:Patrol vessels of the Royal Navy
Category:United States Navy patrol boats to Category:Patrol vessels of the United States Navy
Corvettes by navy
Category:Royal Australian Navy corvettes to Category:Corvettes of the Royal Australian Navy
Category:Royal Canadian Navy corvettes to Category:Corvettes of the Royal Canadian Navy
Category:Indian Navy corvettes to Category:Corvettes of the Indian Navy
Category:Royal Navy corvettes to Category:Corvettes of the Royal Navy
Category:Royal New Zealand Navy corvettes to Category:Corvettes of the Royal New Zealand Navy
Category:United States Navy corvettes to Category:Corvettes of the United States Navy
Frigates by navy
Category:Royal Canadian Navy frigates to Category:Frigates of the Royal Canadian Navy
Category:Canadian Forces frigates to Category:Frigates of the Canadian Forces
Category:Indian Navy frigates to Category:Frigates of the Indian Navy
Category:Royal Navy frigates to Category:Frigates of the Royal Navy
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with common naming style employed by other subcategories of Category:Patrol vessels by navy, Category:Corvettes by navy, and Category:Frigates by navy. (Note in the case of the proposed "patrol vessel" categories, that the names are standardized using "vessel" rather than "ship" or "boat", to avoid potential ship vs. boat disputes.) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. In addition I think that "Royal Navy" is not clear and should be renamed to "Navy of the United Kingdom". IMHO the article Royal Navy should be renamed likewise, but even without that we have precedent of being more precise in category namespace than in article namespace. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 25 October 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:Heroes' Days[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. It's always a shame when most people don't like the existing category but can't agree on how to rename it. I suggest discussing it for however long you need to on the category's talk page (or other appropriate venue of your choice) until there is some agreement for a proposed rename, and then come back to CFD. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heroes' Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. This category was discussed once previously and there was no consensus on any proposed solution. Various people in that discussion correctly identified various problems with the category, not least of which is the difficulty that trying to identify an individual as a "national or international hero" presents. There are many people who may be considered national heroes in their home country while many others throughout the world (and even within their nations) find them despicable. There is also the question of whether any given person qualifies as a hero on the "national" or "international" level. Harvey Milk Day was included in this category and while he is undoubtedly IMHO a hero (although the Christian Right would disagree), whether he can be considered a "national hero" is highly debatable. I suggest moving the three articles that are actually about Heroes' Days to the parent Category:Observances and renaming this category to something like Category:Observances commemorating individual people. Such a name much more clearly matches most of the existing contents of the category and resolves any definitional issues. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to "honor" but I do think "observances" is more accurate than "holidays" but don't care that strongly. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, in my view "observances" and "holidays" would be interchangeable, with "observances" being a little bit broader, to include also non-"day" observances (e.g., the John Smith Remembrance Hour). I'm not aware of any observances that honour people of this narrower type, so either is probably OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Observances commemorating individual people or something very similar. I'd be ok with "honouring", but I think "commemorating" is better. I'm also fine with "individuals" instead of "individual people" if others prefer that. But "Heroes' Days" as a name has POV issues unless it is restricted to the small number of articles about observances actually named "Heroes' Day". The general Heroes' Day article can move up to Category:Observances, and the other two specific Heroes' Day articles are already property categorized as public holidays for their respective countries. The rest are commemorations of specific people, and can stay in the renamed category. --RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading some dictionary definitions for "commemorate", I agree that it's probably equally acceptable as "honour". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Observances honoring individual people for clarity. I think "honor" is better than "commemorate", as the latter is more for events than for people. --Alynna (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Observances honoring individual people which changes the intent of the category; Heroes' Days is defined as "commemorations of national heroes." To these the proposed category would add some of Category:Name days, almost all of Category:Saints days, and a host of very different kinds of observances like Bloomsday, Queen's Official Birthday, or Alan Turing Year. In short, it would be too broad to be a useful category; Christmas commemorates an individual person, too. If no suitable target can be found, I would simply upmerge to their respective country and month categories.-- choster (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing the intent is kind of the point, because the existing category name has POV issues. The actual content is (with a small set of exceptions discussed above) articles about holidays that honor individuals. That existing categories, such as Category:Saints days, might plausibly become sub-categories of the renamed category doesn't strike me as a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that "holidays that honor individuals" is broad to the point of meaninglessness. We might as well have "Cities with airports" or "Companies named after their founders."- choster (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Category:Days honouring national heroes or just Category:National Heroes Days, but I see no reason not to keep the present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all are national days and not all those being honoured are national heroes. Some are local. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:National Heroes Days, as I suggested above. If some relate to State Heroes, does it matter? Alternatively that could be a sub-category or siseter category. If that is still a difficulty, perhaps we should just keep it as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These seem to be a matter of local usage at national or sub-national levels - see especially the redirect from Louis Riel Day into a whole range of commemorative processes under Family Day (Canada). There is already a more robust Category:National holidays with subcategories, so why not dissolve this category into there; would anything worthwhile be lost by so doing? AllyD (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was essentially what I wanted to do with the first nomination of this months ago. I still think it is a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that this was already discussed and closed once with no consensus due to conflicting proposals over what to do with it, and had to be relisted this time, I am willing to be very flexible about the exact solution. The key is to eliminate the POV-ridden association of the word "heroes" with commemorations of individuals, when those are not literally named "Heroes Day". --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 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:Megacoaster roller coasters[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. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Megacoaster roller coasters to Category:Megacoasters
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a classification by height and is not really a type of coaster as I read the material. Category:Foo roller coasters appears to be used for the various types. I'll place a notice on the appropriate project page so that that we can get some expert advice about this proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer reverse merge -- I would not know that megacoasters were roller coasters. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 14:38, 24 October 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:Independent Baseball Players[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. --Xdamrtalk 19:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Independent Baseball Players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Former MLB players playing/played independent baseball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categories with no inclusion criteria and just a single article. There are multiple Category:Independent baseball leagues but no single Independent Baseball League. Players are generally categorised by their teams, not their league anyway. Tassedethe (talk) 14:27, 24 October 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.

Bashkir[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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bashkirs to Category:Bashkir people
Propose renaming Category:Bashkir to Category:Bashkir people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename both these categories to a single new category that fits in better with the parent Category:Ethnic groups in Russia and the related Category:People from Bashkortostan. Tassedethe (talk) 14:22, 24 October 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:Categories in Oregon by county[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 17#Category:Categories in Oregon by county. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Categories in Oregon by county to Category:Oregon counties
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Non-standard naming. Upmerge to parent category. Tassedethe (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This doesn't accomplish anything but add an extra, unnecessary navigational step. Postdlf (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - to Category:Categories by county of Oregon to match Category:Categories by state of the United States. "Non-standard naming" is true of any new category system, but that's not a reason to merge/delete. The question is, does this make sense and otherwise work with WP:CAT, and I think on some levels it does, plus it is simply a lower level version of the Category:Categories by state of the United States. As the encyclopedia grows there will be more and more need to move classifications down to prevent categories from becoming unwieldy big, and by county is an easy way to do this for US items. There are already 5 subcats in this cat and I know of at least one other that could be added, and most (if not all) of these subcats are standard subcats. As in Transportation in X County is a standard category, thus collecting all of these into one category (Transportation by county in State Name) helps keep Transportation in State Name from becoming too cluttered with a mix of location and types of transportation. Then, as I said before, collecting all of these makes sense. Here it helps keep Category:Oregon counties from becoming cluttered with 5 new cats that are topic specific, with more to come in time. Right now you have only two cats that can easily be sorted to the top, and the remainder are the actual county cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Categories by location in Oregon to permit categories by city and metro area to be grouped together with counties as geographic subsets of Oregon. This keeps the main categories clear of the clutter, but provides a category that is large enough to stand on its own, and can be further subdivided by city or county if ever warranted in the future. "By county" by itself is premature, considering that such trees are not common even in much more populous states.- choster 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I recommend relisting this for further discussion; I'd do it myself had I not already participated in this. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 16 November 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:Connie Talbot[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. --Xdamrtalk 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Connie Talbot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are the standard songs and albums categories for this musician. A parent category is not needed to hold the main article and template. Tassedethe (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as the two categories and the upcoming videogame... I've got no real attachment to the category, so I don't mind if it is deleted, but I can see its use. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 24 October 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.

Congolese[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Congolese rappers to Category:Republic of the Congo rappers
Propose renaming Category:Congolese hip hop musicians to Category:Republic of the Congo hip hop musicians
Propose renaming Category:Congolese nurses to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo nurses
Propose renaming Category:Congolese football logos to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo football logos
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Congolese can refer to either the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The names are being corrected on the basis of the contents. Tassedethe (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with need of disambiguation. Have no idea if this proposal does that the right way, and am too lazy (and busy) to find out. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article and more clearly define what is included. Alansohn (talk) 14:52, 25 October 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:Goofy: How to...[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 8. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Goofy: How to... to Category:Goofy shorts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's not clear that all the contents are a specific series of How To... shorts. But they do all star Goofy. So rename to match Category:Mickey Mouse shorts and Category:Donald Duck shorts. Tassedethe (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename instead to the less ambiguous name, Category:Goofy (Disney character) shorts, or maybe Category:Animated shorts starting Goofy . Carlaude:Talk 17:58, 24 October 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:Radio Caracas Televisión RCTV, C.A.[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:Radio Caracas Televisión RCTV, C.A. to Category:Empresas 1BC subsidiaries. --Xdamrtalk 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Radio Caracas Televisión RCTV, C.A. to Category:Empresas 1BC subsidiaries
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category with just 2 articles can be easily upmerged into the main company category. Tassedethe (talk) 12:31, 24 October 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:Too $hort albums[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:Too $hort albums to Category:Too Short albums. --Xdamrtalk 19:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Too $hort albums to Category:Too Short albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Too Short. Tassedethe (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Too Short (rapper) albums to avoid ambiguity, which the mere use of the capital "S"hort does not provide. Debresser (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article, with no further disambiguation needed. Alansohn (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Debresser; can support further DAB in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Without disambiguation. No need if there's no other articles with the same title. — ξxplicit 00:02, 4 November 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:The Deer and the Cauldron[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) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Deer and the Cauldron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category not needed to hold a single article. Tassedethe (talk) 12:18, 24 October 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:Novels by Dodie Smith[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: Keep. NW (Talk) 23:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Novels by Dodie Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. Author has only written three novels and is no longer alive, so obviously will not be writing anymore. Not a highly famous or notable author either, having only one notable work to her name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the Category:Novels by author structure. Lugnuts (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She did write more novels, so we could get articles on some of them. As a general rule small categories unlikely to expand by very much are candidates for deletion, but we may need categories like this to avoid having too many articles in larger categories. PatGallacher (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as part of the Category:Novels by author structure. One novel is sufficient; the author is evidently a defining characteristic of a novel. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, but that's just silly. We do not have categories for an author with a single notable work, nor should it have anything to do with the "Category:Novels by author structure". Categories should be evaluated independently. Dodie Smith is not a proflic author of notable works, therefore she does not need a category. This is a small category unlikely to expand and it should be removed. I see no reason why removing this would somehow grow any other category. Either the author has a cat or does not, there is no upper category it would be placed in instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not silly, but it may raise issues of basic Wikipedia policy which require a full discussion on a relevant page. Removing this category would grow the categories "Novels" or "English novels". Not having categories like this would lead to categories like "English novels" grow to a very large size with the novels of writers who only wrote 2 or 3 notable novels. I admit I would draw the line at an author with only 1 notable novel. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Novels shouldn't be used for that, nor should English novels (unless its novels published in the UK). The author categories does not eliminate having a category for language/country of origin which is a separate element of the novel and not having it will have no affect on the other. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? As the vast majority of authors only ever wrote in one language (I can only think of one who didn't, Vladimir Nabokov) amd most lived and published in only one country, it would be unreasonable not to classify them by language and country in order to reduce the clutter in some categories. PatGallacher (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Language does not denote country for English, and novels should be categorized apart from their author for country/language. There are authors who have written in multiple languages, or whose original works were never published in their home country. This should be properly reflect by independent categories - with novels properly categorized by their own language and country of first publication without it being improperly tied to the author (who may or may not even have an article, much less a category). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case she does have an article. Cjc13 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the author, for instance, of the book of The Hundred and One Dalmatians on which the well-known films were based, it would be interesting to know what other novels she wrote without having to read through her article and the category performs this function. Cjc13 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an aid to navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick look at her wiki page reveals her as the author of 9 novels, all of which are, I'm sure, notable enough for articles of their own, and 2 of which are very well-known. Therefore the cat has potential to grow to a respectable size, even if it is a little bare at the moment. Also, to say that Smith is not famous/notable enough for her own works/book cat seems to me dubious at best. Declan Clam (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of "wider scheme", & in any case 9 potential articles. Time to close this one. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 26 October 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:Fletcher Pratt[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. --Xdamrtalk 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fletcher Pratt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Don't need an eponymous category for solely the main article and a "works by" subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is intended that there will be others. BPK (talk) 04:39, 24 October 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:Erie locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Erie locomotives to Category:Erie Railroad locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Erie is ambiguous. Match name of main article Erie Railroad and parent category Category:Erie Railroad. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:20, 24 October 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:ATSF locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ATSF locomotives to Category:Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article and Category:Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 25 October 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:CNW locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CNW locomotives to Category:Chicago and North Western Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation and match parent category Category:Chicago and North Western Railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 25 October 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:Locomotives of the Pennsylvania Railroad[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 per nom, to conform these categories to the standard otherwise observed within Category:Locomotives of the United States. In contrast to the renaming discussion below (which deals with locomotives by country, not by railway as here), none of the other subcategories have been listed for renaming, so the standard cannot be changed here for all of those categories. This close should not be considered a bar to such a rename proposal to change that standard, provided that all affected categories are named and tagged. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Locomotives of the Pennsylvania Railroad to Category:Pennsylvania Railroad locomotives
Category:Locomotives of the New York Central Railroad to Category:New York Central Railroad locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match form used for other categories in Category:Locomotives of the United States and Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the discussion below, what is being categorized should come first. Ditto with above sections, all should be at "Locomotives of..." oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match standard used in parent category Category:Locomotives of the United States. Alansohn (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The parent is "Locomotives of..." and all the child cats should be changed to match. These two seem to be the only ones that are named correctly. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 18:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the most specific parent is Category:Locomotives by railway. This is a very different case then the by country discussions and should not be confused with that one. There are several different issues being intermixed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 11 November 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:Locomotives of Foo[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 16#Category:Locomotives of Foo. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Locomotives of the United States to Category:American locomotives
Category:Locomotives of France to Category:French locomotives
Category:Locomotives of South Africa to Category:South African locomotives
Category:Locomotives of Turkey to Category:Turkish locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form used for the other categories in Category:Locomotives by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename the others instead to Locomotives of Foo. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the category is about 'locomotives' then that should be the first term e.g. Locomotives of Foo. Makes searching much easier if your interest is 'locomotives'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — for several reasons (1) WP:NCCAT suggests that in ‘by country’ categories, it should be “Locomotives of Foo” rather than “Fooian Locomotives”; (2) It is “Locomotives of Foo” on Commons, so not having to remember two different forms is an aid to users; (3) Avoiding the adjectival form of country names is an aid to users for whom English is a foreign language. Iain Bell (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I propose renaming all Fooian locomotives to Locomotives of Foo in the Category:Locomotives by country tree. Iain Bell (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: For the record, the 113 categories affected have all been tagged and are:
By the way, my spell checker doesn't like “Argentinian”; it prefers “Argentinean”. Iain Bell (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iain Bell's suggestion to rename all the other categories to match these, per WP:NCCAT's general 'of country' rule. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If anyone is convinced that is the reverse merge is the correct direction, fell free to tag the other categories and close this nomination as withdrawn. If the others are not nominated, then this should be renamed for constancy. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iain Bell has tagged the others (or at least many of them) so I suggest we continue the discussion here. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Where does WP:NCCAT rule that such categories should be Locomotives of Foo? --Bermicourt (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I now realise it says that subcats of Category:Rail transport by country should be named "... in Foo". I'm not sure whether we should take that to mean just the immediate subcats or extend it to sub-sub-cats as well - anyone have any strong opinion on "on" vs. "in"? Either way I think the vast number of "noun preposition Foo" forms listed at WP:NCCAT means we should follow suit unless there's a good reason not to. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change to US category. "American" in WP refers to North and South America, NOT to US, for which the present title (or with phrases reversed) is correct. Neutral on rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iain Bell's idea. Put the what that is being categorized before the how they are being categorized. Plus it avoids adjectival forms, which can cause confusion. I also believe Olaf Davis's interpretation is correct, that it should be Locomotives in Foo, as locomotives are the sort of durable good that can, and often are, imported and not necessarily domestically made, which is implied by the use of "of". oknazevad (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per rationale explained in two of yesterdays nominations. Basically the arguments are that 1. This is the accepted form for this parent category 2. We use "American" for all category names that use the adjective to mean US, and this nomination is not the right forum to change that. Post instead on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion for such global proposals. In the mean time, Vegaswikian is right. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which bit of Vegaswikian's comment are you agreeing with? "tag the other categories" has already been done; "close this nomination as withdrawn" seems unnecessary since they've been added here - or are you saying we should close and reopen with the newly added categories?. "If the others are not nominated, then this should be renamed for constancy" - the others have been nominated, so this seems somewhat moot... Olaf Davis (talk) 20:05, 9 November 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_October_24&oldid=1144514361"