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. Suggest matching category name to article name, The Snares. According the the article, "Snares Islands" is an alternate, though unofficial, name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Entirely reasonable and consistent. TheGrappler (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the unofficial note in the article is unsourced. LINZ lists the full official name as "Snares Islands/Tini Heke", per the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (Offshore islands list). Elsewhere in that list and the LINZ map[1] both use "Snares Islands". I think the article and category both ought to be Snares Islands/Tini Heke, there is a convention to use these full names - Aoraki/Mount Cook, Stewart Island/Rakiura etc. XLerate (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of indifferent as to which is used, but I do think that the article and category name should correspond. Maybe a proposal to move the article could be made? Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed move has been made. I also updated the article to remove unofficial, it may have been an error, the legistlation says the earlier name was Snares Islands[2]. XLerate (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to have the close of this proposal put on hold until the article rename discussion finishes and I think it should follow whatever name results from the move request. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). The article move discussion referred to is here. I suggest that the name of the category should follow the result there. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the main article is under rename discussion. This should be closed until it is resolved. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am sure there is a rule against having "/" in article names, for obvious reasons. Occuli (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of (there's nothing I can see in the naming conventions for categories). They seem to be rare, but that may be more because they are rare in general, in article or category names. But they do exist: see Category:Stewart Island/Rakiura, for example. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:07, 2 July 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.
Category:Nuclear power station articles with no picture[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:move to Talk pages. There's no reason this category shouldn't exist, but it should follow the pattern of such info coming from the Talk pages. I'll put this under Manual work.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another reason why templates should not add categories. {{Infobox nuclear power station}} adds this maintenance category on the article page when no image is provided. All other projects include the missing picture category on the talk page. These either use a separate infobox to request the image or include it as a parameter on the assessment project template. One could argue this could simply be changed to a hidden category. While that might be an alternative, I think that using the standard way to include the category within the project template is the better solution. While the current request is generated by the template if no image is provided, the loss of this functionality and requiring manual inputting of this should not be a major issue. If someone would like to manually move the category to the talk page, that is an alternative. But I don't think we need to make it a requirement for this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 23:05, 1 July 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:delete. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another one from banned User:Mac, this category for "Projects that are DIY and open source at the same time" is a dog's breakfast that groups: CalCars, an organization promoting hybrid cars that supports kit conversion; MIDIbox; Open-source hardware; The Bus Pirate, an open hardware tool; Small wind turbine; and World Electric Vehicle Association. Why wind turbines, electric cars and computer hardware? I'm guessing that it's because these DIY projects involve some use of open source code. Obviously, there's overlap between Do it yourself and open source, but the nominated category only confuses things. Master cats Category:DIY and Category:Free software are clearer and sufficient. Delete this one per WP:OCTrivial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 1 July 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. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 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:delete. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shawn's reasoning or Rename with expanded abbreviation. To a medic TIA means Transient ischaemic attack and standards would be either about care of patients or about classification of types of TIA. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Right now it appears that there are only two articles, so there is no need for this category. No need to upmerge since the articles are also listed in the parent. Recreation allowed in the future if justified by more articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 8 July 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:delete. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another renewable energy micro-category by banned user Mac, the main article Power purchase agreement describes it as: "a legal contract between an electricity generator (provider) and a power purchaser (host). The power purchaser purchases energy, and sometimes also capacity and/or ancillary services, from the electricity generator. Such agreements play a key role in the financing of independently owned (i.e. not owned by a utility) electricity generating assets." Two articles had been placed in this category: one was for a photovoltaic manufacturing company which has no mention of power purchase agreements, which I removed; the other was for Sunetric, which according to the article does provide financing via such an agreement, which I left. I suggest deleting per WP:OC#TRIVIA. I've cleaned up and added categories to Power purchase agreement and Sunetric, but I don't see the need for an upmerge here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 1 July 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: Proper capitalization, per main article and all articles in the cat. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Makes sense. -- Ϫ 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sounds uncontroversial. --Bxj (talk) 02:17, 3 July 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:merge. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two more renewable energy splinter categories created by banned User:Nopetro, aka User:Mac. As Feed-in tariff explains, it's "a policy mechanism... imposed on regional or national electric grid utilities to buy renewable electricity." Net metering stares that it is "an electricity policy for consumers who own (generally small) renewable energy facilities (such as wind, solar power or home fuel cells) or V2G electric vehicles" to sell their power back, as part of a feed-in tariff system. So they're really about the same thing, from different perspectives. Both categories are sparsely populated and as categories the distinction is ill-defined and arbitrary. They would benefit from being upmerged to master categories Category:Smart grid, Category:Renewable energy policy and as costs are discussed, perhaps Category:Renewable-energy economy, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. WE do not need a category for every article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 4 July 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. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – all the articles use 'loch' as well. Occuli (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - only one natural lake in Scotland, which is not in the Borders, and all the rest are lochs. BenMacDui 12:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As creator I can agree with that. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:07, 2 July 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.
Category:Communist parties in early Soviet Union[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Since it includes Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union as a subcategory, there is no reason to restrict this to pre-CPSU parties in the early Soviet Union. It can just as easily be named to encompass all the communist parties that ever existed in the Soviet Union. If renamed, the category definition must be changed, but the contents can remain the same. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose exact proposal, support rename in general: it needs a better name. The Union emerged in December 1922. The contents (and, imo, intention) of the category focus on the earlier period (the Union very soon became a single-party state). It is not precisely about Soviet Russia, neither about the former Empire (Polish and Finnish factions are excluded, Lithuanian is included, FWIW) - rather, about the huge sea of confusion and lawlessness. East of Borschov 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Open to any other proposals. From what I've seen, most categories refer to the period starting in 1917 as "the Soviet Union", though of course that's not 100% accurate, as you indicate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:51, 1 July 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.
Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Right now this category is ambiguous—it's unclear if it means communist parties that existed in the Soviet Union, it being a "former" country; or if it means communist parties that have existed in the territory that was formerly the Soviet Union since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In reality it is categorizing the latter. I suggest renaming this to match its parent category Category:Post-Soviet states, which should clarify the meaning somewhat. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a bit of a difficult category, since it includes both pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet parties in the lands that once was the USSR. I created it since it was very difficult to differentiate between Europe and Asia categories otherwise. But perhaps it best option would be to delete the category, and move material either to Europe or Asia, and have a sub-cat Category:Communist Parties in the Russian Federation and Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union included in both Europe and Asia categories. --Soman (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise there was pre-Soviet parties in there too. In light of that, I agree that this is a bit more difficult. Too bad there's no handy collective term that can refer to the territory that was once the Soviet Union? Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:55, 1 July 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. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 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. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, for the same reason. Quinxorin (talk) 04:15, 1 July 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:delete. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We categorize albums by producer at Albums by producer, but we don't categorize bands by producer. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:05, 1 July 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:delete. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of performances by performer—in this case, albums by audio remaster engineer. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not a defining feature of an album, eg one doesn't say of Band on the Run that it was famously remastered by Hoffman (the word Hoffman does appear twice in the article but it is preceded twice by 'Dustin'). Occuli (talk) 08:18, 1 July 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:delete. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of performances by performer—in this case, films by actor. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of precendent for this. Lugnuts (talk) 06:41, 1 July 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:delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Trivial categorization. There's no reason to categorize pages by what type of barnstar a user has received. — ξxplicit 02:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It's a user category, created so that it is possible to easily see who has (and how many have) received the barnstar. --Quinxorin (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User categories are meant for coordination and collaborative purposes to improve Wikipedia, see WP:USERCAT. How is this category either of the two? — ξxplicit 04:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That shows translcusions, barnstars are substituted (or should be). Quinxorin (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I waited for a collaborative usage rationale to be provided, but none was given. I can't think of one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:40, 7 July 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. — ξxplicit 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Article and category names should (almost?) always match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 1 July 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 14.. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)