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. There doesn't seem to be any clear proposal here, and no listing of the affected categories, let alone any tagging of them. The nominator has identified an inconsistency in naming patterns, but there isn't even any consensus that this is a problem worth resolving, let alone any consensus on a particular solution. Editors may want to start discussions on the relevant wikiproject(s) on how to address this. Whether or not it is discussed elsewhere, any further CFD discussion should be properly structured, with the relevant categories all listed in the nomination and all properly tagged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am nominating not this category, but its subcategories for renaming along some kind of consistent scheme. Right now we have (e.g.) Category:Chinese World War II weapons as well as (e.g.) Category:World War II weapons of Italy. Why the inconsistent naming scheme for these categories? There may be other such subcategories of Category:Weapons by war that need to be rearranged as well, but I figured that WP:CFD is the best place to start a discussion about this. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that we just approved a bunch of military equipment categories becoming, say, Category:Military equipment of World War II, we apparently will need to turn everything around and go with "(Country adjective) (weapons) of (war)" in all cases. This seems like a lot of template work for dubious value, and we might think about moving the Military equipment categories back. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better with the standard country name... say "Weapons of Italy in World War II" 65.93.12.65 (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close -- The object of this nom appears to be to rename subcats, but none of them are tagged. Category:World War II weapons of China might well be a reasonable solution, but this requires a multiple nomination of all the relevant subcategories, not a nomination for a parent whose renaming is not in fact proposed or required. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (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: To match parent article and avoid ambiguity. ArmbrustTalkContribs 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:See alternative proposal below, but everything I say in this entry still applies. This was already decided at CfD only about a month ago, maybe two at most. See all rationales already given there, and an admin should close this CfD immediately just for procedural reasons alone. You don't just CfD something over and over again. I think the phrase around here is "asking the other parent"? The summary version is that disambiguation in articlespace does not work the same as it does in categoryspace. Anyone could look for "pool" as an article about swimming or betting or whatever pools. Categoryspace uses plurals, and they would need to be disambiguated - Category:Swimming pools, Category:Betting pools, Category:Tidal pools, etc., etc. But Category:Pool in the singular is not ambiguous. Anyway, this was already hashed out very recently. I know you mean well Armbrust, but this rename would not help, it would only make it more difficult to find and categorize pocket billiards articles. If the category is ever renamed at all it should be to Category:Pocket billiards, and the article should move back to that name as well. The move to Pool (cue sports) was very poorly discussed and involved very few actual participants of WP:CUE. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 20:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both category and articlere-proposed in more detail below. Rename (back) to Pocket billiards, which is not ambiguous in any way and has actually been an industry-standard term since at least the 1920s for the class of cue sports commonly called "pool". The original "pool"-named cue sport was not even a pocket game but a carom game! (Source: Shamos, Mike (1999). The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN9781558217973 – via Internet Archive.), so using "pool" at all in reference to pocket billiards is in fact ambiguous in and of itself. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a link to the previous discussion (I can't find it). I want to read it. ArmbrustTalkContribs 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get around to it but have to cook up Yule dinner and stuff. It SHOULD be marked on the category's talk page, but it seems that few closing admins at CfD bother to leave a note about previous CfDs on cat talk pages for some reason. If you AREN'T doing xmas dinner, you could probably find it by digging through my own contributions list and looking for mentions of the category or even of CfD itself - I don't participate here exept when bored or (saliently) when something I care about is up at CfD. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 00:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the CFD is question was Category:Pool venues in September, which addressed essentially the same issue. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the other CFD addresses a different issue, but similar issue. The ambiguity here is much much higher, since there is no "venue" to indicate usage. 65.94.46.60 (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no ambiguity issue at all in the Category namespace because of the naming conventions within it. See details above. If this is renamed, it should be to pocket billiards, with the article name adjusted to follow (though that would not strictly be necessary, it would be a good idea. No one is actually ever going to search for "pool (cue sports)". It's a stupid article name, even for disambiguation purposes. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 13:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A pool is a body of water, this doesn't appear to be about bodies of water. 184.144.160.77 (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read ANYTHING I wrote above? A category about pools as bodies of water would have to be called Category:Pools, because we use plurals in category names. Yeesh. Why is no one at all apparently paying any attention to simple near-decade-old WP naming convention basics in this discussion? — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 03:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- The article talk page reveals a discussion for renaming "pocket billiards" to "pool (cue sports)". I proposal to reverse that had no consensus. I think that before we can consider what the category should be called, the question of what the article should be called needs more discussion. "Pool" is unacceptable, because it also refers to a pond or puddle. On the other hand, the disambiguator "pool sports" is inappropriate, becasue this refers to the class of sports of which it is one: it should be "Pool (cue sport)", if we go donw that line. Some contributors to the article rename debate suggested "Pool (game)", but "Pool (sport)" would also be acceptable. Rename probably to Category:Pool (game) and the article to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article and eliminate any ambiguity as to the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I agree that the category name should match the article name in this instance, mostly because there are a number of places that are called "Pool". I don't think we need to worry about people not being able to find the category because most searchers will probably end up at Pool (cue sports) first, and the category is at the bottom of that page. If users want the name to be something different, we need to get the article moved first, then the category can naturally follow. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both category and article (back!) to Pocket billiards, which is not ambiguous in any way and has actually been an industry-standard term since at least the 1920s to the present day for the class of cue sports commonly called "pool". [Sources: Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards. 1922. Chicago: Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. Table of contents and throughout, e.g. "Chicago Pocket Billiards", "Rotation Pocket Billiards", etc. From that, the first-ever published pocket billiards rules, all the way up to this year: Billiards: The Official Rules and Records Book, World Standardized Rules. 2010. Broomfield, Colorado: Billiard Congress of America. Table of contents and throughout, e.g. "Tournament Pocket Billiards Games", "Other Pocket Billiards Games", "Baseball Pocket Billiards", etc. The term "pool" is only applied to the game chapters "Bank Pool", "Bottle Pool" and "Bumper Pool", of which only the first of the three is still a current game.] The original "pool"-named cue sport was not even a pocket game but a carom game! [Source: Shamos, Mike (1999). The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN9781558217973 – via Internet Archive. "Pool" entry.], so using "pool" at all in reference to pocket billiards is arguably ambiguous in and of itself, technically. The entire debate can be ended by simply using the industry-preferred term instead of arguing any further at all about whether "pool" is or isn't ambiguous and in what context. There isn't any particular reason to prefer "pool", other than WP:COMMON could apply. But WP:COMMONdoesn't actually apply when it results in ambiguity, the existence of which in this case is precisely what most people have been arguing here. The article was renamed from Pocket billiards to Pool (cue sports) on a very flimsy pretext (namely that "pocket pool", which isn't even the same phrase, is a [rather rare] slang term for masturbating through one's own pants pocket), and with nothing like real consensus. Virtually no one actually involved in regularly editing cue sports articles was made aware of the proposal or had a chance to comment on it. I'm a big fan of the KISS principle, and using "Pocket billiards" instead of "Pool (insert some disambiguator here)" is clearly the simpler solution. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't move the article via a discussion here. Is that going to be proposed at Talk:Pool (cue sports), or is this just a best-case-scenario in your view? Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll propose it there after the holidays I guess. The actions are severable. First move the category to Category:Pocket billiards, which in addition to all the other reasons already given (zero ambiguity, industry std. term, for nearly a century, etc.) will make it more consistent with Category:Carom billiards, Category:English billiards, etc. (other than Category:Snooker; AFAIK the term "snooker billiards" has no currency whatsoever). This need not wait on an article rename (or unrename, actually). Category and article names do not have to match instantly, or even at all. The two name spaces have quite different naming conventions and rationales. As I've also already gotten into in detail, so I won't repeat myself on that stuff. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 06:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename as unnecessary; the only conflicting categories appear to be Category:Pool Department and Category:Swimming pools; both of which are clearly distinguished from this one. I oppose the article move also, as the substitution of an obscure euphemism for an established name. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:51, 11 January 2011 (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:split as nominated. I will notify the nominator and leave the performance of the split to him.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with care suggested in new Category:Film shooting locations articles purging, as they are of general popular culture and historical site/landmark interests in this context.—Look2See1t a l k → 21:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support & Weak Oppose: Category:Film location shooting seems completely workable but I fear Category:Filming locations will remain a mess because it inclused any location that had a move made there once. I would favor changing this to Film location shooting and just purging everything else. If this is a package deal though, I would weakly favor the suggestion. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (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 (no objections after more than two weeks). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I originally wanted to merge these all into Category:Flat horse races for fillies and mares, but then I noticed I closed a nomination which changed the equivalent set of categories for all horses three years ago (look all the way at the bottom). To match the Open horse races categories, the ones that are exactly 1½ miles should go into the middle distance category, and those longer should go in the long distance category. The word "flat" was removed in that nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (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:Rename: From all indications, the only reason this category was created was because the incumbent mayor at the time (Scott McAdams) won a major election in Alaska (the Democratic nomination for United States Senator). There's nothing at present to suggest that this category will be further populated any time soon. The target category covers the bases just fine, and has potential to grow on its own.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of two established patterns, neither of which are being deleted Hmains (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and with dual upmerge outlined by BrownHairedGirl. While this is part of a pattern, it's not one that's likely to ever be populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation emerson7 02:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's AFAIK a long-standing consensus that "Jewish politicians" is a notable cross-categorization, and "Jewish American governors" and "Jewish United States senators" also exist. Roscelese (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: We also have cats for female, black and LGBT mayors. Would you favor deleting all of these as well? RevelationDirect (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of deleting both the female and African American one, yes. It is not rare, unique, or notable to be a female politician these days. Bulldog123 14:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic that has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously NOT overcategorisation --Oh boy my danny boy (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet vote struck and not considered in close. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regarding RevelationDirect and Roscelese, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Unlike LGBT mayors, it's not a big thing to be Jewish and a mayor... it's just another instance of the obsessive ethnicity/occupation categorization/listification that's been going on lately. This is clear-cut case of overcategorization, because the policy states: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. There is no Jews in American politics and there likely never will be. WP:OCAT also states: Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. Unlike being gay, being Jewish (or German or Mormon) does not seem to have a bearing on one's ability to get elected or to do the duties of a mayor. Bulldog123 14:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think this is overcategorisation LtGen (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2011 (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:nomination withdrawn. (NAC) ArmbrustTalkContribs 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I forgot to do this earlier. Apparently both describe different things. One is music made by FD, the other is music produced by FD. In some cases these would be different, in this case, FD produced all of his own music. Sven ManguardWha? 20:14, 25 December 2010 (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.
