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: for disambiguation and wider application. Neftchala city is located within Neftchala Rayon and there is only one bio linked to this page. Moreover the parent category is Category:Neftchala RayonMayumashu (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Seems more appropriate Purplebackpack89 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, because otherwise speculation could... (finish the thought, I couldn't figure it out :P). However, comment: do you mean Category:Openly gay politicians? You put two "Category:"s. dude❶❽❶❽ (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand the principle behind the nominator's reasoning, but ultimately I don't believe that the change is necessary. We oughn't add a sexual orientation category to an article about someone unless reliable sources confirm it, and generally the only way sources can confirm a person's sexual identity (rather than merely speculating about it) is if he or she openly identified or identifies with a particular identity (the situation is a bit more complex for historical figures); in this context, I think that the "openly" is redundant. Kudos to Dude1818 for noticing the multiple prefixes; I've corrected it. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Gay" and "openly gay" are two entirely different things, with the former being much more broad and open to vandalism. I'm confused that your saying "Let's call it gay, even though we mean openly gay". Also, if you look in the bodies of the articles on gay politicians, it universally says "openly gay", not gay Purplebackpack89 17:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that openly gay people are a subset of gay people, but I think my point stands. We should categorize a person as gay only when there are reliable sources which confirm his or her sexual identity; in general, the only way for a source to confirm a person's sexual identity is if he or she has openly stated it. Since we do not out people on Wikipedia, there is little functional difference for the purpose of categorization between "gay" and "openly gay". As for the risk of vandalism ... to be honest, I don't think that a vandal will care about the nuances of the category name. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a living person, a reliable source should confirm that the person has openly stated that he is gay. --Pnm (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with nom that the common name is "openly gay." --Pnm (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if renamed as proposed, this category would be inconsistent with the rest of the Category:Gay men tree. DH85868993 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the page already suggests that "gay" means "verifiably gay." Perhaps this can be amplified by indicating that "openly gay" is the common name, and linking to or summarizing the guideline. --Pnm (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only should be added if its verifiable and in the article already. FinalRapture - †☪ 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rap, the criteria to be added to the category "Gay politicians" is basically to be openly gay Purplebackpack89 23:40, 6 June 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) 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No not change This may be an exception to the 'populated places' naming convention. Every article I checked in this category and its subcategories (I did not check all) is written in terms of this or that Native American 'settlement'. 'Settlement' may be a term of art used by those who study/write on these particular places. Even the categories with 'villages' in their name have articles using 'settlement', not 'village' word. Hmains (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, in a totally unrelated discussion, settlements has come up concerning towns and CDP. From that and Hmains's point, it may in fact be that in the US we actually do have settlements. The problem is that they may not be defined. But that is something that can be addressed after the bulk moving is done. The issue is that in a series of states with CDPs, what do you call the main settlement area when it has a name? Is it a settlement, town, unincorporated town or unincorporated place? But as I said, that needs to be resolved once the bulk moves are over. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this closes as an exception, I think it may well be a good idea to create a sub page say /populated places exceptions to list the exceptions, point to the discussion and explain why. Otherwise we are likely to see these over and over. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Here, "settlements" seems a very vague term. There are villages mixed in among much larger places, and even some extant towns like Fort Hunter, New York. I don't see any evidence that the term "settlements" had a real-world specificity in these cases. Of course, I could easily be wrong about that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 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:rename to Category:Pre-World Championship Grands Prix. I could argue that we should use "Grand Prix races" rather than a French plural, but that would probably suggest a more global change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against. Or at least not to this name. What is the purpose of this category? While the World Championship started in 1950, Formula One is much older. The name should either be Pre-1950 or Pre-World Championship. Factual correctness is also important. --Falcadore (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the suggestion makes sense and I do think the category should change names, I think Falcadore's ideas for a new name would be better. John Anderson (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be happy with "Pre-World Championship Grands Prix". DH85868993 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it needs to include Grand Prix because otherwise there's the question of it being a World Championship in what topic. DH85868993's latest suggestion is the best so far. Royalbroil 13:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment if the category needs so many levels to describe it, is it sufficiently notable? If it can't be described simply, is it actually a category? --Falcadore (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to reply to comment I think Royalbroil was suggesting that the category name needs to include the words "Grands Prix". (I think he thought you were suggesting the category be called just "Pre-1950" or "Pre-World Championship", i.e. without the words "Grands Prix"). DH85868993 (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American Formula One drivers at Indianapolis 500 1950-1960[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whilst I’m happy with the idea of a category for drivers whose only participation in the World Drivers’ Championship was at the Indianapolis 500 races between 1950 and 1960, I wonder if there might not be a better name for it. DH85868993 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some background information for those who may not be completely familiar with the topic:
from 1950 to 1960, the Indianapolis 500 was a round of the World Drivers’ Championship (which has been known as the Formula One World Drivers’ Championship since 1981).
Unlike the other races of the Championship, which were run to Formula One regulations, the Indianapolis 500 races were run to a different set of regulations and hence were not “Formula One races” per se.
Most of the drivers who raced in the Indianapolis 500 races between 1950 and 1960 did not race in any other rounds of the World Drivers’ Championship.
There are actually about 100 such drivers (despite the fact that the category currently contains only two).
Some editors object to these drivers being included in the Category:Formula One drivers tree, on the basis that the races in which they competed were not Formula One races.
Other editors (myself included) are happy to live with the inaccuracy, for the sake of consistency with external sources (which often include these drivers in “Formula One driver” lists) and understandability by non-experts.
Regarding their nationality, all the drivers who actually started the 1950-1960 Indianapolis 500 races (but didn’t contest any other rounds of the WDC) were American. However, there would almost certainly have been numerous other drivers who attempted unsuccessfully to qualify for one or more of the 1950-1960 events, some of whom may be non-American. So if the non-qualifiers are included in the category (per WP:F1 convention) there might be some non-Americans.
Comment I think the present name is OK, but a better name for the category could perhaps be 'American World Championship drivers at...' since the rationale for having them in a certain category is that the Indy 500 counted to the World Drivers’ Championship in those years (and this championship was not yet a championship exclusively for formula one races). John Anderson (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If I am right in thinking that we are talking about one race in a series held in various places, participation in the Indy 500 in this period is in the nature of a "Performance by performer" category, for which the standard andswer is Listify and Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reasonably happy with this name, although Category:American Formula One drivers (Indianapolis only) would match the constructors category, and it's a bit shorter. As far as I know, we reached no conclusion as to whether these guys were actually Formula One drivers or not though :/ Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These drivers are in both Category:American racecar drivers and Category:Indianapolis 500 drivers, which is all they need. The fact that the Indy 500 appeared in the F1 standings for a little while isn't defining for the drivers. They weren't competing on that circuit; the circuit was in effect co-opting their results. Make a list if you like, but this isn't a meaningful category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:46, 20 June 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: What makes these "short"? Clearly, a short film is shorter than a feature-length, but a music single isn't a "short album"; it's a single. The inclusion criteria are necessarily widely subjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent category for short films, stories, etc. Maybe the issue is around the singles category being in the wrong category, rather than the Short Works cat needing deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd agree that in this particular case, a top-level category for short things just doesn't work: a short story or film isn't "short" in the same way that a song or EP is simply less than a full length album (and why should the fast-fading album format be the standard by which musical pieces are judged, anyway)? Perhaps you could prune the category to omit the more problematic music sub-cats in favour of just fiction and films and the like, but I'd still say it's WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – certainly omit Category:Singles and also Category:EPs which are EPs, not SPs. This only leaves the stories and films + a handful of top-level articles. I can't myself see why one should wish to navigate from a short story to a short film: completely different things deemed to be short on completely different criteria. Occuli (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short is subjective and ambiguous. In addition as others have pointed out, this is a mix of written works, film, and two different types of recordings. There is no unifying article for the category and all of the material is already parented so deletion should not upset correct categorization for the material. I'll add even the keep opinions note that some material probably should be removed. So to respect those opinions, recreation with a better name and clear non ambiguous inclusion criteria should be allowed in the future if there is sufficient material to populate a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Anyway, I removed "Category:Singles" from "Short works" category. That lead to controversy how ambigous the meaning range of "Singles" is. Besides, I think "EPs" (+ Mini-LP) could be included in "Short works" category. -- Kookyunii (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response An EP could be considered a short album, whereas a single isn't a short album--it's something else entirely. It's not as though a word is a short novel, but a novella--while much longer than one word--is a short novel. Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective and not clearly defined for a collection of otherwise unrelated articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:23, 11 June 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. — ξxplicit 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. In Buddhism, "Patriarch" is not ordinarily capitalized except in proper names (e.g. the Sixth Patriarch). See usage in Lineage (Buddhism). Pnm (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.Category:Buddhism and women covers the subcategories adequately without requiring every article on a Buddhist female to be categorized in one spot. Also, the opposing editor brings up a good point: Category:Jewish women does look similarly suspect, and should probably be merged to Category:Judaism and women before several thousand articles end up in there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is it particularly notable that some women are Buddhists or that some Buddhists are women? I don't see why this category exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category is up from 35 to 60 articles. --Pnm (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Category:American Muslim Women discussion. Also support deleting other categories which intersect religion and gender--TM 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Wikipedia:Cat gender#General makes me think changing the scope to "Women notable as Buddhists" is the right way to go. ("Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest.") Gender has a specific relation to the topic of Buddhism (per links above).
Delete. (Upmerge to Category:Buddhists.) I think it's a bad idea to categorize by intersection of religion and gender. Some would argue it's OK solely as a container category for categories like Category:Buddhist nuns, but clearly that's not how it's being used. Individual articles are being added to it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created this category for the same reason as the Category:Jewish women and Category:Christianity and women exist. Traditionally religion has been male dominated and so there are many readers interested in the role of women in various religions. Unless the nominator is also proposing deletion of Category:Jewish women and Category:Christianity and women I suggest they consider withdrawing their nomination. I would support changing the scope to women notable as Buddhists. --Dakinijones (talk) 11:04, 16 June 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 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It's a very vaguely defined category with a far too specific focus. The category seems to define "travel episode" as those in which the family visits a foreign country, but there are numerous episodes in which the family travels to other places that could also be considered a "travel episode". -- Scorpion0422 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it There are enough episodes in which the family visits a foreign country or a city, usually for a large part of the episode. These episodes are infamous for being eagerly anticipated by the civilians of those countries and often meet with a lot of controversy, due to the stereotypical depictions. There's no link on Wikipedia where one can check which places The Simpsons have already visited and I won't be the only person having trouble to find out which episodes are travel episodes. Maybe it can be specified on the page itself: only episodes in which the location forms a large part of the plot and is featured in at least a large part of the episode.
That's because Wikipedia is not a fan site. To find such information, you should go to a fan site, not a general encyclopedia. Also, it should be noted that there was previously a Traveling in The Simpsons article, but it was deleted via afd. -- Scorpion0422 01:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Gran2 08:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the meaning of the category is ambiguous, unclear, and relatively difficult to apply consistently. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:07, 14 June 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:Articles containing explicitly cited English language text[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 to Category:Articles containing explicitly cited English-language text. Update: We attempted to do this rename but honestly, it was just too much of a headache because adding the hyphen required an amendment to Template:Lang, which of course resulted in the other language categories that use that template having the hyphen added to them, and many users got really worried about this. So if any user wants to propose that the hyphen be added, this category and the subcategories of Category:Articles containing non-English language text must be nominated together.Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to but I don;t see it's grammar. Google hist for explicitly-cited - this cat, fro "explicitly cited" lots. RichFarmbrough, 08:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Grammar? "Explicitly" is an adverb modifying "cited." "Explicitly-cited" is not a common compound adjective.- choster (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HYPHEN; we don't use a hyphen after -ly adverbs in such constructions. Ucucha 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was thinking that was a better place for a hyphen if we want one... The purpose of these hyphens is to avoid ambiguity "light-green jacket" as opposed to "light green jacket" (or even "light green-jacket"). Where there is no ambiguity it seems perfectly sensible to let the words stand on their own. RichFarmbrough, 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
True, there should be a hyphen there. Ucucha 15:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. At first I thought it was about "explicit language" (WP:NOTCENSORED). It passed :). Then I looked at typical uses of {{lang}} and it appears that they are not citing, and they are not about text. Examples: 1964 Campeonato Ecuatoriano de Fútbol, 9M133 Kornet. These instances don't cite anything, these are just translation. East of Borschov (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By preference they would be a translation we are citing, we only use our own translations as a last resort. RichFarmbrough, 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Would "explicitly labeled English-language text" be clearer? Ucucha 15:27, 4 June 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 June 14. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)