Domestic Australian domestic cricketers by state team[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. While this is indeed confusingly named, it would be inaccurate to label many of these or other cricket teams by nicknames. Another look at this entire tree might be in order.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: for clarity, for those not that familiar with Australian domestic cricket, that what is meant here are players who have played for these state teams and not just any cricketer who is native to or resides in the state in question, regardless of if they ve represented the state in cricket or not. (Note:team nicknames are used in the names of the corresponding article pages of each.) Mayumashu (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually agree somewhat with the rationale, but I believe it's clear enough from the existing titles that such are playing for the state rather than merely coming from it (in addition, some may not even come from it). Orderinchaos 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match corresponding articles, with the understanding that other cricket team categories that don't match the main article should be similarly renamed for consistency. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:41, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated. There were several suggestions thrown around, all of which seem to run into more problems than the proposed rename. Consensus here was clear that the current name was not suitable, and the best alternative was to rename the category back to Category:Future elections in Australia. — ξxplicit 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Apparently these are not of the scheduled variety and this should be renamed back. The first discussion was here and the DRV is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Category:Upcoming elections in Australia. I don't prefer Category:Unscheduled elections in Australia but mention it because the would-be consequences make me laugh hard. "Future" has the wrong feel to it, too long term. Once an (imminently) upcoming election is scheduled, it should probably go straight into Category:Elections in Australia, bypassing Category:Scheduled elections. An election is only certain once a Writ of election has been issued, and this happens only a matter of weeks ahead. Even in cases where future elections are scheduled, an early election is always possible with the effect of displacing the scheduled election. We don't really care about scheduled elections vis-a-vis upcoming elections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and note the discussion at DrV July 8. I don't like SmokeyJoes's suggested alternative of "upcoming": in British English, "upcoming" is a ugly neologism, though maybe it is longer-established in the Americas ... and I see no good reason to avoid "future". It's a simple and clear word whose meaning is readily apparent to speakers of all varieties of English. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start with "upcoming", it's from Mike Selinker's nomination in the first discussion. I'd have said "Coming". I prefer "Future" to "Scheduled". I'm sure that there's a better expression yet to be offered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for missing that "upcoming" had been Mike's suggestion ... but "coming" is also not a good choice of word for this purpose, because it has an alternative meaning in England, relating to the sort of extra-curricular activities listed in the revelations here. The category relates to elections, not e******tions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Upcoming seems reasonable, but the original ("future") is as acceptable a compromise. Some thought should be given, too, to what name to give the parent category as well as Category:Scheduled elections in Asia as both contain a number of entries to which the same issues apply. Orderinchaos 13:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - future is far too vague. ('Forthcoming' might well be the traditional UK word.) Occuli (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I see nothing really wrong with "future" - at least it is not factually incorrect, like "scheduled", and it is hardly more vague than any of the other proposals ("upcoming", "forthcoming", etc.), most of which appear to have regional problems anyway. Frickeg (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or rename to "Upcoming" or "Forthcoming". The point of these nominations was to remove the concept of "Future", per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm moderately okay with "Upcoming" or "Forthcoming," though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, how does "future" violate WP:CRYSTAL where "upcoming" and "forthcoming" do not? Frickeg (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said moderately okay. I would prefer something with no prognostication involved, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename essentially per Frickeg above. I'm not hugely bothered by "future", in my opinion it is preferable to "forthcoming" and "upcoming" for reasons that BrownHairedGirl has outlined better than I could (again above). Whatever happens, it cannot be left the way it is. -- Lear'sFool 04:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New thought. What do people think of the word Expected? We can agree that the elections, regardless of whether dates are set, are expected. They're not givens (in theory, Australia could instantaneously become a lawless state through... well, I don't know what combination of science-fiction calamities, but they could occur), but everyone has an expectation that they will occur. That puts it in the now, rather than the future. I would be happiest with a word that is accurate in all cases (which "expected" is) and still doesn't have any WP:CRYSTAL ramifications. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the words suggested so far, considering comments, plus http://thesaurus.com/browse/upcoming, I think I prefer Anticipated slightly ahead of Expected. Future may not be really so bad, but it does feel likely to invite fanciful entries i the distant future. "Anticipated" feels to me to imply verifiable anticipation by newspaper commentary. On the other hand, I am increasingly warming to the idea of Delete in favour of putting all future, present and past elections into Category:Elections in Australia. The encyclopedia is supposed to be timeless, isn't it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and a bit of a rant. There are several suggestions so far, but all of them lack the clarity and simplicity of "future".
Coming has other meanings, as above
Upcoming is regional slang, as outlined above
Forthcoming is completely inappropriate, because its normal usage is to mean "candid and willing to cooperate". Category:Forthcoming elections would need to be balanced by a Category:Unforthcoming elections, for elections where candidates were not open about their intentions. (Imagine that, eh? Politicians not telling the whole truth??)
Anticipated and Expected don't work either, because those words comment on the degree of interest of the observer. (I neither anticipate nor expect next year's election in Ruritania, even though the date is firmly scheduled, because it is a matter of complete indifference to me whether they elect a troupe of circus monkeys to run their country, or stick with the usual mendacious and avaricious humans)
All this word-juggling seems to have arisen because somebody somewhere decided that the word "future" contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. That's a bizarre reading of WP:CRYSTAL, and as Frickeg pointed out, it's the big unanswered question. WP:CRYSTAL explicitly allow for future events, subject to certain conditions, e.g. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place". So what's the problem?
Are some editors afraid that a category containing the word "future" will be a license to create articles about, say, German federal elections in the 22nd century, or Seychellois elections when the islands are underwater due to global warming? If so, that's a non-issue, because WP:CRYSTAL quite clearly rules out that sort of speculative article. Categories exist to categorise existing articles, not as a license to create any article which would fit into the category. For example, we have Category:Butchers and Category:Hairdressers, but that's not a license to populate either category with articles on topics which don't meet our inclusion criteria, such as the hairdresser and butcher in my village.
Please, folks, let's warp this up before more such categories end up at DRV to provoke rants about CFD decisions being a few pork pies short of a picnic. "Future" does not contravene WP:CRYSTAL, and its meaning is clear. Just use it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some context: This process started because there were many articles in the Category:Future infrastructure that were in various states of theoretical build: some nearly done, some in planning phases, some merely proposed. Some of them would never see completion, and thus the statement that they would exist in the future was suspect, (in my opinion) violating WP:CRYSTAL. I proposed the elimination of that term, and the subsequent discussion showed that several editors thought the word "future" is not clear at all. (That's why they call it the future.) All of the discussions passed without much disagreement until after the "events" tree was renamed. Now we are having a legitimate discussion about whether "future" is okay for those. For some kinds of events (concerts, for example), proposition does not equate to likelihood. For elections, expectation is almost identical to reality. So some word-juggling is merited, though we could certainly decide "future" is the right word for elections. I don't like the term much, but I assume everyone has a good-faith and well-reasoned argument for one naming convention or another.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with this - I suspect I would have agreed with Mike on the infrastructure question. But this just highlights the dangers of trying to apply blanket consistency without first considering whether the new word/term/template/category is appropriate for all situations - in most cases it is not. There is nothing wrong with having different words for utterly unrelated categories (like infrastructure and elections). As far as I'm concerned "future" remains the best option for elections. Frickeg (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow. I would prefer "Future", but could live with "upcoming" or "forthcoming". Elections will only be "scheduled" in a country with fixed term Parliaments (such as USA). I am not Australian and am not sure what the situation is there. In UK (at present) Parliamentary terms are not of fixed length, so that the date of the next election remains uncertain. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "future". As BHG notes, "future" is a perfectly clear and appropriate term, the alternatives are all problematic, and the opposition to "future" appears to arise from a misreading of policy. Ucucha 21:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility. We switched a lot of the Future categories to "Proposed." But the original proposal for switching those was the word Planned. Anybody like that word for the elections?--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is, for example, the next Irish general election "planned"? It could happen any time in the next 24 months.
A further problem is that however much "planned" might have some degree of applicability to elections in the future, it can be applied even more so to elections in the past which were planned(and maybe even scheduled) but never happened, such as the United Kingdom general election, 1940 (under the Quinquennial Act, it was due no later than 5 years after the 1935 election). And what about all the countries where elections were cancelled by a ruler or coup-leader who didn't like the expected result?
None of these alternatives has the same clarity and simplicity of meaning as "future", which Mike deprecates on the basis of what looks like a misreading of policy. This renaming was pasted at DRV, and it's a pity to see the dead horse still being flogged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still here. Is it old news now that the future election is scheduled for Aug 21? I think "Future" has consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 24 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. Category:Rugby union players is supposed to be empty of articles, and these articles are already suitable categorised under that tree. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Individuals should not be categorised by whether or not they are active in their field of notability. – PeeJay 23:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as former categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Rugby union players (which ought to be "Rugby Union players") to avoid loss of data. "Retired" is as bad as "former" and "20th-century", which we have consistently removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 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.
Category:People of the Sydney Northern Beaches[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:upmerge. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match with corresponding article page, named Northern Beaches (Sydney); note that in the article, this suburb is consistently referred to as ' the Northern Beaches' Mayumashu (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Parochialism. Not a useful category. Residential location with the city is not defining. The article Roden Cutler (deceased), for example, contains nothing of relevance regarding his residential location for what period of his life? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmokeyJoe. (Also "People of the Sydney Northern Beaches" conjures up this hilarious picture in my mind involving bearded men and campfires - not quite what was intended.) Orderinchaos 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmokeyJoe; far too specific for this kind of category. Frickeg (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you were recently creating an extended category substructure, dividing the large Category:People from Sydney. Dividing up the large category is not such a bad idea, but doing so by areas may not be the best way to go. Did you consider dividing on decade of birth, or on profession/reason for notability? Creating subcategories is important, but I think it would be better done if discussed before implementation. Does a suitable forum for categorisation development exist? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 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. — ξxplicit 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with some doubts. On one hand, it will match with the name of the main article (Electricity generation). At the same time it seems that 'power generation' is more common name than 'electricity generation'. One alternative could be renaming to Category:Electric power generation. Beagel (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearer, matches other cat, "power" (alone) seems to be an Americanism and certainly not common in the UK. No objection to some wording with both, as per Beagel. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some plants generate mechanical power and then use the waste heat to generate electricity (Cogeneration). Others generate electricity and distribute what would otherwise be waste heat to heat buildings in the vicinity of the plant. There is some merit to having a category that could cover all forms of energy generation. On the other hand, this category as it stands could be considered to cover all forms of power generation, including mechanical power generation in automobiles, lawnmowers, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:13, 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.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Courcelles (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The merge target was created because I did not know why I couldn't find the category. The state is unneeded for disambiguation purposes and tehre appears no reason not to intuitively match the article's title. Alansohn (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BrownHairedGirl-there has been many categories and some are duplicates. This can be confusing. I do tag the various categories and templates with the WikiProjects that they are connected with so one can try to keep track of them and what would be needed. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The suggested target should be a dab category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 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.
Category:State University of New York at Stony Brook alumni[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) 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The school calls itself Stony Brook University, and the existing category is out of sync with the new title. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 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:merge. Courcelles (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:RenameMerge. Solar power is using solar energy to produce electricity. Right now the proposed target is a redirect to solar energy. I believe that a significant number of the articles in Category:Solar energy belong in Category:Solar power. This would allow a reorganization of many articles into a more logical grouping. Yes, I could undo the redirect, but this category still needs renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This will make the category tree more logical. However, after Category:Solar power was recreated it is technically merger, not renaming. Beagel (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I modified the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:35, 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is what it is actually sorting, not (e.g.) discographies of all of the albums released in Nigeria or albums that were exclusively released in Panama. Cf. Category:Albums by artist nationality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 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) 23:12, 15 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) 04:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains no albums, just a discography. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 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:keep, but purge all except those about specific fictional casinos.Category:Gambling films covers the rest of the films; no objection on a similar books category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete or something. If you look at the contents, you have films and books based in fictional casinos mixed in with some articles about fictional casinos. One option would be to purge the category of articles not specifically about casinos. Another option could be to create Category:Plots that include fictional casinos. If we purge, does the category meet OC small or is it part of a series (fictional places)? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed Bag: I see what you mean. 2 of the articles are stand-alone articles on a fictional casino from a series and I'm writing an article to bring that up to three 2 are books which feature casino-related plots. Four are from a James Bond franchise where the name of the work is also the name of the fictional casino. And I'm not sure how to group 1.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a Minor Purge: I would favor pulling out The Casino Murder Case, Fools Die and maybe Casino (film) because I got caried away by adding them. That would leave the cat with 6 or 7 articles plus the 1 I'm adding which makes it viable and fits with the Fictional restaurant, Fictional hotels and similar cats. (Creating a casino plot instead would be viable but have the same issue of needing to drop some articles.)RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 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 as empty. Courcelles (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. An appropriate Category:Castles in Bavaria already exists, and "Schlösser" is not an English word. (The German words "Schlösser" and "Burgen" both correspond to the English "castles".) Cyfal (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (empty) dupe. jonkerz♠ 00:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Castles in Bavaria. I am not sure that Schlöss is an exact translation of the English "castle", just as most French chateaux are country mansions, but I do not think that matters unduly. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 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:merge. Courcelles (talk) 04:44, 16 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) 04:42, 16 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. Dab category should be created after the bot runs. Courcelles (talk) 04:43, 16 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 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another energy splinter cat by Mac/Nopetro, created as if Category:Solar power by country did not already exist. Sub-categories Photovoltaics plants in Hungary and Photovoltaics plants in the Czech Republic (created by an unrelated banned sock account) may need to be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. Even if they're kept, I believe they can be adequately housed in the merged category, which would now combine solar power manufacturing and generation on a per country basis. If you're searching by country, this would make finding info easier. Yes, if we really need to split Solar cell manufacturing and power generation on a per country basis somewhere down the road, we can revisit that. We don't, now, judging by the lack of content in the source category.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per well-reasoned nom -- no need for such a category scheme at this point in time. Cgingold (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, we'd need to call it Photovoltaic (or solar cell) manufacturing by country, for clarity's sake. Speaking of which, there isn't a lot of clarity as to when and why we call categories photovoltaic or solar cell. We'll need to look at that soon, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, in looking at the solar power/energy differences and the photovoltaic/solar cell boundaries, I'm getting a headache. Photovoltaics appear to be nothing more then packages of solar converting devices. A bit over simplified, but I believe a correct interpretation. If correct, this may lead to modifying the parenting of a few categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 15:06, 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 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Banned user Nopetro had issues with the English language and logic, and it's hard to tell what's more to blame for this. The two articles in the nominated category do not correspond to other organizations in what should be the master category, Category:Economic institutions, had Nopetro understood how to place this correctly in a category tree. Comisión Nacional de Energía (Spain) and Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía are energy utilities/regulators and not economic institutions. With his poor grasp of English, Nopetro might have thought "economic" meant that these organizations dealt with energy economization, as that seemed to be his main interest in populating this category. Anyway, delete as a misnamed, ill-conceived and unnecessary category: the two articles are correctly categorized elsewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 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 as duplicate; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ll move the three to the right category, unless it s already been done. Mayumashu (talk) 22:40, 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:already renamed, nothing to see here. — ξxplicit 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename to Category:Rigid rotor helicopters. There is currently no subcat of Helicopters devoted to specific technology. Moreover there's no article on the rigid rotor technology (the article Rigid rotor seems to have nothing to do with this). Pichpich (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a lockheed technology, rigid rotor is a subarticle in helicopter rotors, there are very few helicopters that used this type of rotor. Bachcell (talk)
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 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. Ambiguity in present name isn't even funny. East of Borschov 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they are all historians, it would be better to rename the others in similar fashion. "Medievalists" could work in a number of subjects, but all the parents here are for historians. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per East of Borschov, though I *do* find the ambiguity amusing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:27, 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 result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and ambiguous title. (Should be something like American historians of the Renaissance) In any case, if the category is kept it shouldn't be nationality-specific. (something like historians of the Renaissance). Pichpich (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have other by-period cross-discipline scholar cats that I'm aware of. If somebody was to seriously set up & populate such a cat, that might be ok, but one stray prof dosn't help anybody. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 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.
Category:Companies of the Arab League and Category:Companies of the Arab league[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge into the former. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Occuli: Arab League is correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 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.
Category:African-American organized crime and Category:African American organized crime[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge into the former. Courcelles (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. --Pascal666 07:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the former (adjective has -). Occuli (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the former, per Occuli Mayumashu (talk) 22:49, 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.
Category:High Tech architecture and Category:High-tech architecture[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge into the latter. Courcelles (talk) 21:27, 15 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:Hanover Region and Category:Hanover region[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:Merge. --Pascal666 07:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COmment. Merge where? After looking at this, the main article appears to be Hanover (region). Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 16 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in The Bronx and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Bronx[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge former to latter. — ξxplicit 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. --Pascal666 07:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the former (it is The Bronx). Occuli (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the second one. More commonly in print, it is "the Bronx", without the capitalized "the". The first one was created this year; the second one has been around since 2007. The main article is now at Bronx. Category:The Bronx needs renamed and cleaned up to standardize the capitalization issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a recent cfd claimed it was 'The Bronx' but am happy to defer to confident assertions. Occuli (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your memory is pretty good. I found there was this proposal to change to capitalization which I had forgotten about, but it closed as keep it lowercase, for that category anyway. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:10, 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.
Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1980–81 season and Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1980-81 season[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge per Mayumashu's suggestion. Courcelles (talk) 09:30, 15 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:Football (soccer) clubs 1979–80 season and Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1979-80 season[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:moot; already done through speedy renaming process. Courcelles (talk) 01:52, 15 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:Football (soccer) clubs 1939–40 season and Category:Football (soccer) clubs 1939-40 season[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:moot; has already been done through the speedy process. Courcelles (talk) 01:53, 15 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:Indonesian space program and Category:Indonesian Space Program[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:Merge. --Pascal666 07:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the former. Occuli (talk) 08:26, 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.
Category:Indonesian Music Awards and Category:Indonesian music awards[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge to the latter. Courcelles (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. --Pascal666 07:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the latter. Occuli (talk) 08:23, 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Currently contains a category and an article. This just seems to add an extra level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure. I can't even figure out what this was supposed to be used for. It certainly isn't needed. Cgingold (talk) 07:32, 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. Would someone please remember, should I forget, to create a title without the diacritic? Courcelles (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per main article (and corresponding discussion). jonkerz♠ 00:20, 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:merge. Courcelles (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge after dropping the company. With the proposed merge and dropping the company we are left with two articles. Upmerge the articles to the underpopulated parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom to give us one solar-concentrated and populated category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Beagel (talk) 09:01, 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, maybe to Category:Solar powered devices since that is what they appear to have in common when you drop the companies. The listed main article is a redirect to solar panel. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good catch. The category as currently named would include Solar telescopes and any device used with the sun, which was clearly not the intention (and would likely be WP:OC#TRIVIAL if it was). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 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 as nominated- though the brunette girl's solution was seriously considered! Courcelles (talk) 01:51, 15 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 17#Category:Hanover Region and Category:Hanover region. — ξxplicit 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)