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 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Banned user Mac created this category and added a section on 18 community colleges in the US that they are National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium training centers. This 'main article' is a redirect to Clean Cities which has only an external link to indicate that the consortium exists. More seriously, community colleges by nature offer a wide array of programs. Were we to have a category for each program or faculty offered it would obviously lead to unworkable clutter. Delete and listify as a way to begin turn the redirect into an actual article on the consortium. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is as usual based on a misunderstanding of the category system. There is not much point in listifying unless a source can be found and an article written. Occuli (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there is a source if one perseveres ([1]) so a sourced list could be embedded in Clean Cities. Occuli (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an improbable collection of nursing colleges an no MIT ... and a confusing name: what in the world this "alternative propulsion" means? bicycles? alien beams? comment: "made by Nopetro" is a de-facto ticket to hell ( there are fifty-eight actual card-carrying Communists in our Defense Department!), but I'd suggest not mentioning any names. He's gone, war is over, and anyone can still the history logs. East of Borschov 14:29, 11 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.
Indifferent : singular or plural. Yes i know that they are commonly called "extensions". I find the term rather vague, therefore chose "suffix". I could be wrong, though, since, in grammar, a suffix is not separated from the word by a punctuation character, in which case "extension" may be more accurate. It's just that it seems so much like Unix/DOS lingo, but again, maybe that's just me. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:48, 13 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 invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the other Indonesia-related subcategories. Pichpich (talk) 08:40, 10 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:Rename. To avoid confusion and ambiguity. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to something else: You're right, this Cat I just created is way too vague. (Sorry about that; I've been working on oil company cats for awhile and got tunnel vision.) However, the main article on this conglomerate is Total S.A.. To keep everything consistent, how about renaming it Category:Total S.A. (no spaces betewen . and A)? That would be clear to people interested in the oil company and rule out other companies named Total.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per RevelationDirect. "Total S.A." is a better suggestion, it matches categories like Lockheed Corporation. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:32, 13 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:Municipalities powered by 100% renewable energy[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. — ξxplicit 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name does not make it clear that we are talking about electricity here, at least for two of these. I'm not happy with the proposed name, so suggest away. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem with Samso and why you switched it to electricity only but we need to be careful: cities are typically electrically powered by plants far away. (It's the same concern I raised for that geothermally heated city cat, as I recall). Take Montreal: According to Hydro-Québec#Power_generation, a staggering 93% of my home province's power comes from renewable hydro power. The thermal plants are really used for grid balancing onlly and it's doubtful their power plays any notable role in powering my hometown. There are major cities across Canada and elsewhere that can make the same claim. Unless we're talking hamlets like Samso, municipalities of any import are generally not powered solely by plants within their boundaries, and modern day grids are a mix of power sources. Masdar City, "The world’s first zero-carbon city," does not yet exist. The Zero-carbon city is enough for now, until such time as these become more than a dream, if ever. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed name was selected to address many cities in Quebec. But you are probably right in that deletion may be the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem if the outcome is delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 17 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 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The three articles in this rightly neglected category by banned user Mac are all Battery electric vehicles. Another pointless duplicate category. Target category is much more precise as to their power source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would suggest simply adding Category:Electric vehicles as a master category in that case, and seeing if the community supports that classification. Maybe some people who are really into this stuff would not, since fuel cells can consume fossil fuels -- but then again, so does your local electric company (unless you live in my home province -- 93% of the time anyway). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment grid powered vehicles, such as third rail or overhead pantograph are all-electric and not battery powered... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my withdrawal, per the comment below. How's that for decisiveness? Let's let this play out and see... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or turn into a parent category adding an introduction or a main article. This does need discussion. Right now all-electric vehicle is a redirect to battery electric vehicle. That leaves us with some question about what an all electric vehicle is. Any nuclear powered vessel meets the bill since the heat is used to generate electricity. Likewise for diesel train engines. Keeping without an introduction or a main article is not the best solution here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant cat. The entire Electric vehicles category is a huge mess, incidentally. If electric vehicles other than "battery electric" are invented (who knows, maybe "supercapacitor electric"), then we can start creating analogous categories for them. The "All-electric" category is redundant. Vehicles powered by overhead lines can get their own category, if anyone is interested in bothering with it. Miracle Pen (talk) 14:59, 14 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 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 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Underutilized subcategory since most of the contents are already in the parent. Since it has been around for almost 3 years, I think the lack of use speaks for lack of a need for this. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pointless and rightly neglected duplication of main category by newly discovered suspected sock of banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:53, 10 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: hatnotes says listed are only those of Slav Macedonian descent, and, as such, not of Greek Macedonian - suggest a rename should be done for clarity of category purpose Mayumashu (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- not water topic -- Macedonia is both an independent Slavic country and a Greek province, where the Greek government refuses to admit that it has a Slavic minority. This difficulty is a result of the partition of an Ottoman province after one of the wars during the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. I thought we had a consenus on this issue, which did not involve accepting the Greek view that the name of the republic was actually Skopye. we should stil, to that consensus position. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 12 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:Rename, Split or something else. Another one from our favorite trio of editors. Ultraviolet is ambiguous which is why we have Ultraviolet (disambiguation). The question is how to deal with this. I think a split may serve us the best, but I'm not sure how to do that. The current subcategories don't really help me. So any good ideas out there? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure this is the primary and dominant meaning (UV light in the EM spectrum), what with sunscreen, sunglasses, and clothing with UV ratings, blacklights in nightclubs, etc... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The article Ultraviolet is about the colour and is the dominant meaning. I can't see why the category should be any different, unless I've not seen some new way of doing things. — Huntster (t@c) 05:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category names should not be ambiguous so even if the main article is not disambiguated, the category may be. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems odd, but if that's common practice, so be it. I don't work with cats much on en.wiki. — Huntster (t@c) 07:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I see no real ambiguity here. The category is about the form of electromagnetic radiation, which is the primary, original and most frequent meaning of ultraviolet, as well as the subject of the article ultraviolet. Spacepotato (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – ultraviolet is an adjective and needs a noun. 'Ultraviolet light' or 'Ultraviolet radiation' would do. I agree that categories should have unambiguous names, regardless of the article name. Occuli (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not currently especially ambiguous. If it needs to be qualified, it should be Category:Ultraviolet radiation: Ultraviolet radiation is not properly “light”, and it has no “color”, according to the technical definitions of “light” and “color”. See here (search down for “ultraviolet”). –jacobolus(t) 01:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any electromagnetic radiation may be called "light" (see definition 1b, light1, American Heritage Dictionary, 4e.) This is the sense of the word used in ultraviolet light. Spacepotato (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment UV is a colour and has been referred to as such, since many animals see UV as a colour in their photopigments of their photoreceptors in their eyes. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is not ambiguous: it refers to a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum beyond what we can see. All articles will inevitably be concerend with that part of the spectrum in some way. What other meaning is there? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ultraviolet radiation per jacobolus. The current name is not acceptable for a category, per Occuli. And with the widespread use of HotCat, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it used for this person! As for "light" versus "radiation": while it may be acceptable in certain contexts to refer to "ultraviolet light", it is always correct to say "ultraviolet radiation". Also, the super-category is quite properly called Category:Electromagnetic radiation. Cgingold (talk) 17:45, 14 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.
