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 delete. BencherliteTalk 15:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommending deletion as a cross-section more suited to a tabloid newspaper than an encyclopaedia. Failing that, rename to something less tabloidy (ie without the word "celebrity"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in part, support in part - It is already noted on the categories talk page that a better name is sought so the celebrity part change, I support. However, I oppose deletion. The purpose of categories is to help people learn and help them read about similar articles. Why else would we add categories like "German policians"? We are not linking things to get higher search engine listings (and if we are, we are a bunch of evil, manipulating online beasts). We link things to assist the online community and readers. This category serves a legitimate need. In short, renaming is fine, deletion is bad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest change to "Category:Entertainers sentenced to jail" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-created material previously deleted by consensus. This category has been deleted squillions of times under various names. The most recent full discussion is here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this. However, there is a real difference now. Previous discussions have never addressed what the purpose of categories are and how this category fulfils an educational purpose. If the purpose of categories is not to assist others in finding similar articles then the whole idea of categories may be in question. Very interesting question...what is the purpose of having categories? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying none of the many previous discussions for similarly named categories considered this in the context of what the purpose of categories is? I find that unlikely, though I haven't read through all of the discussions recently. Have you? Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read every deletion discussion that you linked. If it is a matter of "a stupid category" versus "I like it", I can see the point. However, there has never been a discussion taht I can see where the discussion is "what is the purpose of categories-this fulfills it" versus "it does not fulfil the purpose of categories".
I only linked to the most recent full discussion. There were others preceding it and some speedy deletions since that one. I find it unlikely that no one has ever put their mind to the purpose you describe. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4 as re-created material previously deleted by consensus, per Good Ol’factory. In fact, given that this has been deleted several times before, it should be super-speedy deleted and salted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted category was deleted along the "stupid category" versus "I like it" rationale but never has there been a discussion on what is the purpose of categories and how this fulfills that purpose. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "this has been deleted several times before, it should be super-speedy deleted and salted" drive a stake though it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.220.162 (talk) 02:35, 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.
Category:Members of the European Parliament from Ireland[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. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename or delete(?). I have separated this category from the nomination immediately below because I'm not sure if it should be kept or not. It is essentially a container category for the corresponding categories for the Republic of Ireland and for Northern Ireland. Since these two regions have never been a unified country under the jurisdiction of the European Parliament, is this a meaningful categorization? And if it is, does it make sense to use "for Ireland" here? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This category may appear superfluous, but because of the tangled history of Ireland, we have a dual category structure there, where every Category:Foo in Ireland has sub-cats Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Foo in Northern Ireland. Removing this category would leave a hole in the category tree which would confuse some readers, because of the ambiguity in terminology: "Ireland" is both he name of the 32-county island and of the 26-county state covered in the wikipedia article Republic of Ireland. (The terminology is contentious, but the status quo was the outcome of a lengthy process at WP:IECOLL). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: The cat needs to be retained per BHG. Like Good Ol’factory, however, I'm not sure it makes sense to use "for Ireland", so I would tend to oppose renaming as well. Scolaire (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "from" doesn't really work either, because an MEP for Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland doesn't have to be "from" Ireland. It seems to me that the default "for" is as good as anything if the category is kept. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is a container category for 2 subcats, one of which already uses 'for'. (I agree that 'for' is not quite right but it is better than 'from'.) Occuli (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency with the related CFDs for individual nations. This should never be more than a container category. Bairbre de Brún will be properly categorised as a "MEP for Northern Ireland" and in "People from Dublin". This who sit for a constituency which they are not "from" will need to be amended manually. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. A second follow up from my earlier aborted nomination. Using "from" in these category names is ambiguous, because an MEP does not need to be a national of the country he or she represents as an MEP. They are MEPs "for" a country. This usage is already reflected in most of the list articles for MEPs for specific countries. I suggest that for these top-level categories, we can continue to use the full "Members of the European Parliament". If subdivisions are created by term or constituency, we could use "MEP", as in Category:MEPs for Austria 2004–2009, for example. Yes, many of these categories have subcategories that also need to be renamed, but we're just taking this stepwise right now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – 'from' is indeed ambiguous. I also agree re using MEP lower down the category tree. Occuli (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. This is a useful clarification and standardisation, and I support retaining the unabbreviated form for these higher level categories. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. The location of their consituency is much more important than their national origin (or even country of birth). These are usually the same, but not necessarily so. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain current formatCategory:MEPs 1999–2004 (recently created by me; added here in case there is consensus to use different format)
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is an initial follow-up to my earlier aborted nomination. Hopefully we can agree on making these changes. Having "serving" in the category name is unnecessary. (I would prefer to see parentheses around the dates or at least the dates set off by a comma, but I am willing to leave that to another day.) Yes, both of these have subcategories that need renaming, but we're just taking this stepwise right now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. This removes redundant and excessive un-needed superfluous vebosity from the name, and follows the format of similar categories such as Category:UK MPs 2005–2010. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 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:Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. One inclusion criteria is if we don't know what type of fossil fuel is used by the plant. That is a cleanup category some place. The other is when multiple fuels are used. That is simply listing in multiple categories. If someone suggests simply deleting, I would not object. Not a well focused categoryVegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the rationale for getting rid of fossil-fuel station categories while Category:Hydroelectric power stations and Category:Nuclear power stations still exist, although at different cat tree levels. Likewise, I don't see the rationale of removing a common umbrella for all burner plants (gas, coal, oil shale etc. have something in common, that is being irreplaceable hydrocarbons). "What type of fossil fuel" is used? here where I live most are multi-fueled (e.g. natural gas as primary fuel, heavy oil as backup and extra capacity fuel) but the primary fuel (gas or coal) is always publicly known, and the secondary is almost invariably heavy oil. At times "secondary" becomes "the only", sometimes for years... East of Borschov 02:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal was not to get rid of the categories, just this one. Another option would be to remove the introduction and make it a parent category. Would that work better? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 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.
Category:Former nuclear power stations projects[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. Planned but not built is not former for me. Also these should be listed by plant and not project to match the rest of the plants. If kept, the sorting of the articles needs correcting. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another one from banned user Mac, the notion of something being a former unbuilt project is totally confused. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to [[:Category:Cancelled nuclear power station projects]] per Cgingold. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better and better: yes, I don't think we need "projects," per Vegaswickian below, here or in the US sub-cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the difference in meaning between cancelled and canceled?[1] Also note that we are introducing as US UK spelling question here since most members are of the US ilk, the US spelling should probably be used even if we don't care to consider any minor differences in the meanings of the two spellings. And the more I look at the definitions, the less happy I am with the word no matter what the spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, but technically this is a merger, not renaming. Beagel (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my support to the proposal by Cgingold which seems to be better solution than merging this category with future projects. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The proposed rename is in fact an existing category that is quite properly being used for proposed future projects. However, the current name of this category is badly flawed -- therefore, Rename to Category:Cancelled nuclear power station projects. Cgingold (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to include project. So Category:Canceled nuclear power stations would seem to be shorter and as accurate. Also note the spelling. As I understand it, my suggested spelling is the one that applies to projects that have been stopped. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By my understanding you can't cancel the power station, you can cancel the project. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can. In fact I believe that there have been several cases where a project included multiple plants and something less then the proposed number were built. This is why splitting hairs on what each one is may not really be helpful. Plants were proposed and plants were not built. It is that simple. Of course we could also argue that they are not plants but units. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 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:delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I wonder if this category is really needed given the diverse nature of the contents. While there is a main article, I still wonder about the usefulness. Maybe all it needs is someone to adopt it and fully populate? If Kept, rename to Category:Emergency power systems. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 6 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. While what the last commenter says is true, the head article should guide what goes in the category, and seems to do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query shouldn't that be separate articles? you can get email on your mobile, without having web access. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 17:28, 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.
Category:Vehicles with seating for 6 or more[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. Courcelles (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Vehicles should not be categorized based on number of seats. See Category:Car classifications for classifications preferred for categories. Vossanovao< 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nominator. What next, Category:Vehicles with 6 or more cupholders?
Keep (as creator). Anyone with three or more children knows how hard it is to find details on seating capacity without going to each manufacturers site and searching stats on each vehicle. This is a pertinent and useful category that violates no policy or guideline that I see. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a random number. A standard car can sear 2 in front and 3 in back, so that these are vehicles with something more than that. In UK they (or some) are referred to as "people carriers". Perhaps we can find a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: it is too wide a description. With the title it has, the category should include all buses, possibly trains and maybe even lots of horse drawn coaches. To meet the usefulness requested in the above Keep plea the category should be renamed Cars with seating for 6 or more.Malcolma (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to add that there are already categories by body style such as Category:Minivans and Category:SUVs, for which most vehicles have three rows of seats, so there would be much category overlapping. Likewise, we do not have categories by number of doors, but rather sedan, coupe, hatchback, etc. Categorization by a number of features is usually considered overcategorization. Six seats may or may not be an arbitrary number, but a category's criteria should not be debatable, i.e. "why six?". If you want to create a list page such as List of vehicles with six or more seats, go ahead, but the automobile categories should be limited to body style, car classification, and brand/manufacturer.--Vossanovao< 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not true. Many SUVs do not have three rows of seats. Seating for 6 is a legit criteria used by manufacturers. There is a list page List of 6-passenger sedans but per WP:CLN a category seemed appropriate and fitting to broaden group. There are a lot of catagories used for vehicles ranging from the first year of manufacturing to the engine location Category:Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles. While I agree "6 or more" might be to braod a term, the solution seems to be to create catagories for all seating capacities, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently this is as horribly broad as it can get. Seating for 6 or more? why doesn't this include airliners, infantry fighting vehicles and trains? Even if this was changed to Passenger Cars with 6 or more seats, six is not all that special a number either until the 1990s many American sedans had seating for 6. --Leivick (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gtstricky: Wikipedia is not a buying guide; those in need of a roomy jetliner will rather call a board meeting, those in need of a roomy tuk tuk will ... where was I? As already said, it is an underpopulated black hole. It can swallow all the buses, all the jetliners, practically all Detroit classics ... does this make any sense to "Anyone with three or more children"? Can't they just walk into the dealership? East of Borschov 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they can go to 5 or 10 dealers, why use WP for research anyway? As for your other argument a rename seems appropriate to remidy not an axe. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply seating six is not in itself a defining characteristic of a vehicle and I would strongly oppose turning our category system into a kind of buyer's guide, per WP:NOTGUIDE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see buying guide on there at all. How are you fitting this into WP:NOTGUIDE? GtstrickyTalk or C 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the category does not mention if the car's seating is with or without clowns. Also I don't have any idea what a standard car is and how we can use that to determine seating. In my case, if it has a bench seat, it seats 6. If it has bucket seats or a console or the shift lever is set back by the seat, it only holds 5. Since many consider small pickups as cars and they are vehicles, how many people can you sit in the bed? How many seats can you install in the bed? Finally are we talking about capacity, legal capacity or advertised capacity? They are all very different. Clearly this categroy has too many issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legal, per the number of seatbelts. It is not hard to source. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is not clear in the category name. Also your comment totally ignores the issue of seats in a truck bed which may have seatbelts. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we can tweak the name then? I am not aware of any production vehicles with seats in the truck bed. Of course someone could add them but that is the same as cutting the roof off of any vehicle and calling it a convertible or putting a larger engine in any car or truck and calling it a muscle car. That does not mean they go into category:convertible or category:muscle cars.GtstrickyTalk or C 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous editors. Too vague, of no interest, and Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Minivan or such category should be plenty. ⊂Mr.choppers⊃ (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. I look at this from a historic point of view: You would have to include all those 7-passenger open tourers from the Edwardian era. Further, most stretch limos place more than 5 people, and so on. What is intended here belongs in my opinion in a category "Minivan" or "people carrier". --Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's also the American cars from the 1940s-1980s, which had a front bench and a rear bench seat, seating 6... as most cars did, since front bucket seats were not standard. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 19:32, 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:rename all. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too clear on why Category:Canadian alternative rock musicians is included in this batch of nominations, considering that it's already consistent with the proposed new name for the rest of them — and that as constituted, you're suggesting that we rename it to itself. No objection otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I posted that, deleted it, you commented on it, and I have now responded, not necessarily in that order. By the time you posted your comment, it should have been removed from here and the CfD deleted from there. Anyway... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm the creator and yet I support the change. I created those cats a lifetime ago. The new names are better choices. --User:WoohookittyDisamming fool! 23:50, 6 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. Makes more sense grammatically for those Wikipedians interested in films in general. —Eekerz(t) 09:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment Your name is certainly better, but should it be film or films? I think that "film" is preferred, but either one is superior to what we've got. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:09, 6 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has just come to my attention that the same user who created this category also created a number of other sportspeople by city categories, see Category:Sportspeople from Paris etc--TM 09:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thinking this over again now, a year later, and looking at the discussion cited (where I m surprised that the closing decision was to delete) I m leaning now towards supporting now having a 'sportspeople by city' tree, where there are now, quite well established, 'actors by city' and 'musicians by city' and a few other categories by particular occupation by city. The 'people by city' lists tend to be long and 'sportspeople' is a general enough category - I d definitely oppose a 'football players by city' etc. by specific sport. Mayumashu (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that "actors by city" and "musicians by city" ought be tossed in the sh*tcan too. There's no real need for them; actors and musicians and sportspeople are not defined in any meaningful way by what individual city they call home, and shouldn't ever be subdivided any more narrowly than their province or state (and I should throw in that in some Australian cases, the state level of categorization — the one that's actually useful — doesn't even exist, with the occupations in question being rather ridiculously subdivided only by city.) And by the way, "People by city" categories are only excessively long for a few major metropolises — even if all of Windsor's unneeded subcats were upmerged back into the parent, the category would still be only slightly larger than 200 articles (which is not large enough to require subcategorization). Toronto and New York City, on the other hand, are too large — but they can both be subdivided by borough, and accordingly still don't need any OCAT subdivision by occupation. Delete, and consider this a vote of support for any attempt to build a consensus against killing all "occupation by individual city" WP:OCATs. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, that dividing larger cities can be done by borough etc. Yeah, if the other occupation ones (aside from local politicians, I guess) are done away with, then not having this one too would work for me too. Mayumashu (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It is simply a trivial intersection of unrelated characteristics. I don't personally see any great need to subcat any 'by city' categories, even by borough. Occuli (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with 94 articles in the category, it is quite large enough to be a category. This structure should only be allowed for places with a substantial population - cities by the European definition, not the US one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bottom line on all of these if to decide whether by city is defining characteristic for sportspeople. If it is, then we should keep. Personally, I think the intersection of occupation and city is a tenuous at best. Do basketball players from Paris have more in common with each other than all French basketball players? Unlikely.--TM 05:15, 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:rename. No prejudice against a deletion discussion whenever someone feels like starting one, but there's no consensus relating to deletion here. Courcelles (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name of the category does not make it clear whether the pages are books which have won the award or the authors of those books. The articles populating this category are all books, but the parent category is Category:Writers by award. Canley (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - in the absence of independent reliable sources that this book award rises to the level of prestige contemplated by WP:OC#AWARD the category should be listified and deleted. If this is deemed notable enough for a category it should be renamed to reflect the scope of the award...is it for books, for authors, for both/ the latter, if the award is defining. it needs to be split. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say "listify and delete" but Miles Franklin Award has a list already. That is what we generally do for awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid confusion. The award is the most prestigious in the country btw & a quick glance at Category:Books by award would seem to indicate that we don't delete these cats as a matter of course. Misarxist (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to more clearly describe the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 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:rename. Courcelles (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – per nom. If one is unaware of the band, confusion is certain. Occuli (talk) 07:33, 6 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:Self-withdrawal. I'm going to withdraw this for now for a more modest, step-wise proposal. I appreciate the comments that were made—it did provide some ideas of what direction we may need to head on these. I will renominate shortly, I hope. (See above.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming (or merging or deleting, as specified)
Nominator's rationale:Rename/merge/delete as indicated. This is an attempt to begin the clean-up of MEP categories. This is far from a complete clean-up, but this initial nomination is intended to accomplish a few things:
(1) To standardise the way a category limited to one European Parliament term is represented. Rather than "serving DATE1-DATE2" or the other various forms that are used above, I have suggested just including the dates in parentheses as a type of disambiguator.
(2) To eliminate the categories that use 2004 as an arbitrary cut-off in the categorization system: there are a few "serving before 2004" categories, for example. These can simply be upmerged to the appropriate parent pending future subcategorisation by specific term.
(3) To standardise the subcategories of Category:Members of the European Parliament by country. The ones that refer to the "German constituency", the "Luxembourg constituency" and the "French constituencies" can just be referred to as being "from Germany", "from Luxembourg", and "from France", as the other by country categories do. (This is how the categories were initially structured, but some time ago someone changed these three and redirected the old categories to the new names.)
(4) To correct and standardise the names of the French constituencies in category names.
(5) To use the term "Member of the European Parliament" except for the constituency-specific categories (using it might be too laborious in those cases, but they could be expanded if desired).
If these changes are accepted, I will follow up the nomination with further attempts at clean-up for related MEP categories. — Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I spotted this lot recently, and noted that they needed a cleanup, but unfortunately I can't support this particular set of changes :( Thee are some good ideas in there, but a few glitches which make the package as a whole a bad idea.
I support getting rid of the 2004 cutoff, which seems arbitrary
The terminology denoting the constituency is too verbose, and retains some imprecision. Rather than "MEPs representing the", why not just use "MEPs for"? Same meaning, but shorter
The use of "from" in the category names is ambiguous, and should be eliminated. MEPs can and do represent countries other than those they might be regarded as being "from", but these categories capture not their nationality or heritage, but where they were elected. "MEPs for France" or "MEPs for Germany" removes that ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasons, but I think you're letting the perfect get in the way of the good. The tree is a godawful mess and there's no way all the necessary changes can be made all at once. For instance, we can't here make the change in your #4, because I haven't nominated all the "from FOO" categories, so we may as well try to make some incremental changes. There can always be follow-up nominations. Your #1 I do not understand—we generally avoid the abbreviations in category names, and you at least need a comma to set off the dates, if not parentheses. If everybody wants this to remain a dog's breakfast, it can, but I do think some changes need to be made. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think BHG is using eg Category:UK MPs 1951–1955 as a model. These have been through cfd several times - the argument is that these are likely to appear several times on some pages and so a terse shorthand is appropriate. The tree is indeed a dog's breakfast. Occuli (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so with respect to the abbreviation, I could be cool with that—but what is with not setting off the dates with even a comma? That looks pretty slack, IMO. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I got the names off the English website for the European Parliament—officially, it seems to use the French directional words, even in the English version. This is such a mess it's almost like we need to go through the issues one by one and get consensus on them, so that they can be widely implemented across all of these: (1) How to format the dates—in parentheses or out; comma or no comma); (2) What general language to use (from, representing, for, etc.); (3) Do we subcategorize by constituency when a country only has one constituency? (4) What to call the constituencies. (5) When to use MEPs and when to spell it out. ... Trying to deal with all of these all at once gets a bit much. And then there are the party groups barf-fest .... I'd be willing to start a discussion elsewhere, but I fear I would get no participation, and then things would come to CFD, and users would shoot down what was decided on by only a few editors. Any ideas? Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let a sleeping dog's breakfast lie? Do we subcat by constituency at all, or just by country? Where are PastorWayne and Nopetro when you need them to bring sanity to chaos? Occuli (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – BHG's points all seem persuasive. Occuli (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have categories for UK MPs by Parliament (e.g. Category:UK MPs 2005–2010), so I do not see why we should not have a similar setup for MEPs. I would prefer a rename to Category:MEPs for Est France constituency (etc) - if we are to keep constituency categories - and to rename to Category:MEPs 2004–2009. However, I do not think we need the triple intersection of MEP with Parliament and constituency, so that these need merging into a single constituency category. However, I am not sure that we need constituency categories at all (neutral on that). This is very similar to what BHG suggested. If there is only one constituency, "for Luxemburg" will do very well. I appreciate that this may partly be a sample nom, and look forward to seing the follow-ups next week. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 6 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 and, if needed, purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue against that second point. These were categories that existed prior to any efforts of mine. However the existence of specific cats like "egyptian philosophers", etcetera make this cat more useful as designating language. Perhaps, the ones you mention should be moved.Greg Bard (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom for standardisation of these, so long as they do exist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:46, 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.
