Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21[edit]

Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in North America[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. This is without prejudice to creation of more "by country" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in North America to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Oceania to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Africa and the Middle East to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Asia to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Carribean, Central, and South America to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Europe to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to group these by continent since that is unnecessary and hinders navigation. The proposed merge target is in fact the only parent for these categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait This entire structure needs further thought. Deletion here will leave orphans of Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in foo, where foo is various countries. Either a separate category is needed for each country (with an appropriate parent) or instead of deleting these nominated categories we need replacement categories based on the actual names of theaters of operations (U.S. theaters of operations in World War II) in which these bases existed and not just geographic regions as is currently the case. Visibility of all the airfields at once can be achieved by other means than collapsing all these categories. Hmains (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will not create a new problem since they are already orphans from the country tree at a category level. To fix the orphan problem, you just need to add a country subcategory on the children categories, if we really want to do that. As far as I know the articles are not orphans since at the article level they should be listed in the by country categories. I'll also add that if we keep any of the subcategories as by country trees they would be in Category:Airports in Foo so parenting would be clearer and clean. Also, I would not oppose some other type of reorganization for the various articles. However I don't see how up merging to the top parent and then into by contr4uy categories would in anyway hinder a reorganization. It should make it easier if you have the articles all grouped by country. Then you can just add those to were they belong. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for Continents Agree with deleting the continent categories eg for North America, Europe where the airfields are in country categories already. But for “Africa and the Middle East” and “The Caribbean, Central and South America”, separate airfields into country categories eg USAAF airfields in Bermuda. And link existing and new country categories to Airports in that country. The Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Oceania is a mixture of “by country” and “by theatre”; and the similar Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces Air Transport Command is all by wartime theatre not country. “By country” is problematic where there are many small territories and islands eg the South Pacific and Caribbean (OK for Bermuda say, but the Netherlands Antilles has just split into a number of even smaller territories). Hugo999 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deleting intermediate categories of “USAAF Airfields” particularly “USAAF Airfields in Caribbean, Central and South America” – which actually contains some Mexican airfields eg General Francisco Javier Mina International Airport (it is not in either Caribbean or Central America!) Those in Mexico could go into category “USAAF Airfields in Mexico”. But perhaps a new category “USAAF Airfields in the Caribbean” (which could include the sole one in Bermuda?) as there are so many separate islands/territories in the Caribbean. Not sure about Nicaragua/Panama etc in Central America and those in South America though. Hugo999 (talk) 13:11, 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.

Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the North Atlantic Ocean[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. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the North Atlantic Ocean to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in North America
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Upmerge single entry category with no strong prospects for growth. Also the current name is somewhat confusing when you think about it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 21 May 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:County buildings in the United States[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:County government buildings in the United States. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:County buildings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is currently a 3 member category. However the question is, do we want to create a category for government buildings by county in the US? I'm thinking with all of the other categories for these, one more is not going to be helpful. Then we would further hide this at some point in a State category. So I think deletion is wise. On the chance that this results in keeping then we should Rename to Category:County buildings and structures in the United States to match the common name for items in this tree and add {{container category}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. As the contents make clear, this isn't intended for government buildings by county, but rather buildings used by county governments, and so it should be renamed to "County government buildings..." to make that clear. No real opinion on whether adding "and structures" is necessary. The level of government is important. We currently have Category:Buildings of the United States government for the federal government; Category:State government buildings in the United States; we should also have Category:Municipal government buildings in the United States for city/town halls and the like. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An important wrinkle to consider in dealing with this category is the fact that many (indeed, it's probably most) of the buildings used by U.S. counties for governmental functions are called "courthouse" and are included in the totally separate category hierarchy under Category:Courthouses in the United States. That category hierarchy does not make distinctions for the level of government associated with the courthouse, so it includes federal, state, county, and city courthouses. --Orlady (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to County government buildings in the United States with the expectation any subcats would be named County government buildings in foo-state. While smaller, rural counties may only have a courthouse, counties with bigger populations have at least an executive building. Of course, they have many other buildings as well (maintenance buildings, etc), but these are less likely to be notable. Hmains (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jails would also be in this group as well as fire and police stations so the range of contents is reasonable. But there is still the issue of leaving structures out of the title. Yes there are those too. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to County government buildings in the United States, for reasons given by Hmains. I don't see a need to include "structures" in the category name, as I'm having difficulty imagining wanting to differentiate (for example) "county government bridges" from "state government bridges" or "county government dams" from "federal government dams" or "corporation-owned dams". --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 25 May 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.

Norwegian local politicians by county[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: There are two reasons for this nomination. 1) The included articles should be local politicians only, and so they are as of today. However, the current names are ambiguous as to whether the politicians are politicians hailing from these counties of whether they are local politicians in these counties. 2) Today, these categories do not distinguish between the two sublevel administrative subdivisions in Norway, i.e. municipality and county level. Most municipalities still lack a category for their local politicians, leaving these categories filled with municipal politicians as well as county-level local politicians without any distinction. A new hierarchy for county-level politicians can subsequently be created, i.e. Category:Akershus county politicians (or Category:County politicians from Akershus) subordinate to the proposed Category:Akershus local politicians.

This nomination is done in conjunction with developing the Category:Politicians by first-level administrative country subdivision and Category:Politicians by second-level administrative country subdivision structure. __meco (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Today, the categories do not include local politicians only. They also include politicians hailing from these counties, BUT which have a political connection to the county. This is because we have some articles on obscure legislators, and all we know about them is that they were elected on a county ballot, so they had some kind of connection to the county. Geschichte (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. But you don't see that as an argument against this proposal? __meco (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to know what will be done about such politicians. Will their category be removed altogether? Geschichte (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing is that these categories often are in place of e.g. "People from Vest-Agder". Care has to be taken that if "(county) politicians" are removed, then a "People from (county)" is added - except those cases where such a category is already in place (typically when the person is from an old city). Geschichte (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: what is a local or a county politician? Do you have to be a member of the county council, county leader of the party or county board member? Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot give an answer what will be done about the politicians you mention. That would be up to the consensus of editors. I'm sure we would figure it out though, and I think it would be a pity to make this nomination hinge on having that settled first.
  • If these categories are in place of "People from (county)" categories (or "People from (municipality)") that is a problem which I have somewhat also observed myself. Obviously they could no longer serve that dual purpose with the ambiguity now being taken out of these categories, and categories would have to be added in the instances where this applies. That would have to be a maintenance task. Could we define an algorithm to be applied to the bot which will make all these changes? I'm not sure. But we could inquire with the closing admin and the users who run the bot(s) which do these recategorizations.
  • That is a good question. As for your fist question, these categories will form an umbrella hierachy for municipality and county politicians (which are both "local politicians"). Furthermore, I think we should equate the term "local politician" with the Norwegian "lokalpolitiker". Then only people who are elected members of local government would qualify, and also mayors and members of formannskap/byråd which are appointed. I'm unsure how to deal with high-ranking members of the parties' at the local level that haven't been elected into kommunestyre or fylkesting. This is an issue to be discussed and settled in the future, perhaps involving other country hierarchies also. I don't believe it's necessary to have this settled before deciding on the present proposal.
With all of these things still up in the air, I still believe that the proposed change will bring us forward since the present scheme is even more ambiguous than the case will be if we move forward as I have proposed. __meco (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not Norwegian, but in Britain most local politicians (councillors etc) are regarded as NN. A few will be notable, either because they occupy a particualrly prominent position or because they are notable for other reasons. I would suggest "Politicians from foo" covering all levels of government without distinction of level. Local politicians may subsequently obtain national office. They may be from A (originally), but live in B (later), and represent C. Categorisation as a politician from A; from B; and from C would all be appropriate, but they should not also be categorised as people from all these places. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want us to lose the option of categorizing a municipal or country politician to give information of where they serve(d) as politicians. A municipal or county politician has a vocation which is very clearly distinguished with regards to the geographical area which their legislative assembly covers, and these geographic areas also coincide with our geographical categorization scheme. Therefore it is very natural to facilitate a scheme which does what my proposed name changes enable. Then I can foresee a future debate of whether it is at all appropriate to have categorizations for politicians based on where they happen to live, since we don't have actors, musicians or military personnel categorized below the national level. __meco (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think I'm on the same page as Peterkingiron. Consider merging Category:Norwegian local politicians to Category:Norwegian politicians. I'm not convinced that we need this level of categorization at this time. Where we do, appropriate categories can be created. I'm even less convinced that we need to categorize across countries at this low of a level. Also local is somewhat ambiguous. In this particular case, maybe not, but as a general rule it is going to be problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry to see this argument as I believe this position will act to worsen the confusion, for Norway at least. If you will peruse some of these categories you will see that local politicians in Norway abound on Wikipedia, perhaps in contradistinction to many other countries. Just take a look at Category:Kristiansand politicians. And this is in a country with less than 5 million inhabitants. So I really do believe there is a need for the delineation which this nomination aims to accomplish. __meco (talk) 08:10, 12 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:Electric vehicle parity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric vehicle parity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#ARBITRARY and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The description for this rather confusing category (to me, anyway) states that "Electric vehicle parity means that the price of the electric vehicle is not more than its combustion vehicle rivals." Fair enough, but then the category goes on to group companies and kits for electric vehicle conversions; the vehicle to grid category about systems that sell their power back to the grid; and one particular car model, the Nissan Leaf. Unless I'm missing something, none of these articles or sub-categories actually relate to electric to internal combustion parity: one would hope that converting your car to electric or plugging it into the grid would help you achieve cost parity, but that it is not an established objective quality of the category contents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mantain'. Converting your used combustion car you can obtain a price lower than a similar new combustion car. In any case, now are appearing NEW cars than are going to have the same price in the show room than similar combustion car. This is the case of the Nissan Leaf. And is a deeper parity, because you do not pay or need an old glider. --Nopetro (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Nopetro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But a Leaf isn't intrinsically a case of vehicle parity, surely that depends on what gas and electric rates are where you live, and in many oil producing regions gas is heavily subsidized. Similar to your "gold bubble" category below, it seems to me you're creating categories to make a statement about the cat contents (if any) rather than grouping by inherent and defining qualities of the articles themselves. Categories can no more be WP:OR than articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same than use only one currency in an article, we would all the currencies. I have added the reference with the clear statement, so no original research. About other categories, I answer in the right place.--Nopetro (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. No possible articles or categories belong in this category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, articles belongs to this category, as the some Renault electric vehicles, for example and between others. --Nopetro (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. See Shawn's comment above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't figure out what this is supposed to be a category of, not to mention the matter seems somewhat subjective. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons that Shawn in Montreal has ably explained. Nopetro appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & function of categories. Cgingold (talk) 01:20, 26 May 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:Gold bubbles[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 04:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gold bubbles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, and as essentially an empty category, as neither article in the category, Gold and Gold exchange-traded fund, are themselves "bubbles." To categorize a gold exchange traded fund as a "bubble" is subjective and pejorative, seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mantain the category has benn just created, but is not empty and more articles are going to join the category. The category reflects a reality, speculators that attacks to money values, soberanity debt and invest in gold. In any case, following this theory, a lot of articles about bad reality, would be deleted, decreasing theright to information in Wikipedia.--Nopetro (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Nopetro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean a proposal to Lynch me ?. --Nopetro (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you've completely missed my point, which is not that gold bubbles would not be a "bad reality." It's that there are no articles at present about gold bubbles, here or anywhere in Wikipedia, that I can see. If there were, I'd support this category, as a sub-cat to Category:Economic bubbles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, economic bubble can be interpreted as pejorative (?). I do not think so. Also gold bubble is not. It is a really that is going to explode, as happened with the suprime, with different damaged parties and similar players. Sit down and see it in first line. If you agree, I suggest recreate the category later, with more articles and data --Nopetro (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not agree until such time as there were multiple articles on gold bubbles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No present articles belong in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I cannot show a deletion of the category in the category log (it does not exist), but now there is one and before there were more. --Nopetro (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As you created the category, you could report as to what articles were in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree: if there were articles in the category, we could keep it, but as it is , Delete. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons that Shawn in Montreal has ably explained. Nopetro appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & function of categories. Cgingold (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Gold exchange-traded funds unless some one can provide information that such funds are popularly known as "bubbles". My understanding for the term is that it means a speculative investment, but "bubble" as a term for a comapny comes from the 1720s and 1730s. It also refers to a speculatove frenzy, sch as the South Sea Bubble, the dot com bubble, and the recent housing bubble. I would like to wait and see whether the creator can make this inot a worthwhile category before we delete it completely. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 26 May 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:Renewable-energy promoters[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 Category:People associated with renewable energy. — ξxplicit 04:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renewable-energy promoters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: With all due apologies to that great champion of renewable energy -- yes, that means you, Bobby Jindal -- the bar is clearly set rather low as to who can be added to this category. I'd argue that virtually every politician has "promoted" renewal energy at one time or another. Maybe the words have even passed Dick Cheney's lips. I say delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Anyone who's actually done anything tangible to help create these projects can be added to the master Category:People associated with renewable energy it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mantain. Renewable energy organizations already exists and to mantain clean the overpopulated renewable energy category. In any case, it is evident that lacks a lot of people in this category, that can be added.--Nopetro (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Nopetro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parent category and delete. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 24 May 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:Air New Zealand Cup[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: keep. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Air New Zealand Cup to Category:ITM Cup
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect change in competition name. See, e.g., this press release from the New Zealand Rugby Union officially announcing the sponsorship change. Additional remark by nominator: I moved the main article to ITM Cup to reflect this change. Dale Arnett (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on several other discussions, lets stop rewriting history. Leave this as is and create a parent category named Category:ITM Cup. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with above. Article should also be reverted to original name and ITM Cup should be seperate article. Djln —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.56.157 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 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:Climate refugees[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 Category:Climate change. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Climate refugees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename to Category:Environmental migrants. Only one article in the category, and it's Environmental migrant. If expansion were possible, the category should be renamed to match the main article, but I don't think it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have said, Upmerge to Category:Climate change. I made a mistake in editing the article to remove a supercategory of "this" one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say upmerge for now, with the option of recreating in the future, in the all-too-depressing likelihood that we do have a body of biographical articles on bona fide environmental refugees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to environmental migrant, with the possibility of recreate the category in the future.--Nopetro (talk) 11:53, 22 May 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:Energy conservationists[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 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Energy conservationists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining characteristic of anyone. Perhaps there is some appropriate category that it should be merged to, but almost all of them are in other Sustainability categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mantain'.This is a category about energy conservation promoters. In ani case it is not the same the category renewable-energy promoters than renewable energy contributors, that you can create if consider it usefull
  • Delete per nom; this has no reasonable or clear inclusion criteria, making it inevitably include people based on opinion or lip service. Stick to activist categories for this subject so that it's limited to people who actually do something. postdlf (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons and for being a neologism. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 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.

Category:FK Jablonec 97 players[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. — ξxplicit 04:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FK Jablonec 97 players to Category:FK Baumit Jablonec players
Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article name and the current name of the club. Darwinek (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Baumit a sponsored name addition, and if so is there a chance that it could change again, and so should the main article be moved? If not, then the category should change to reflect the article page. Eldumpo (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article stands at FK Baumit Jablonec. It is the official name of the club since 2008, reflected also in the club logo. It does not seem the sponsor will change in near future. The club is well-financed by this large construction company and signed an agreement for longer period. - Darwinek (talk) 11:24, 24 May 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 by city and district or neighborhood[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 as nominated. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:People by city and district or neighborhood to Category:People by city district or neighborhood
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Up merge to parent category. I'm not convinced that in this small tree we need to separate out categories in this area just because they include the city name. I'm not even convinced that we need this tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 21 May 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:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing[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: keep. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category and Template:NoAutosign (which I cannot edit due to its level of protection) allow editors to violate Wikipedia:Signatures.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to take the template to WP:TFD if you want it deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:NoAutosign. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 22 May 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:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in New England[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 all. — ξxplicit 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in New England to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Northeast United States to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Northern Great Plains Region to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Southern Appalachians Region to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state
Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Great Lakes Region to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces by state
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Upmerge to the state categories per this discussion. This category grossly over categorizes the articles incorrectly to be in every state in the area. There is no need for this. The by state categories provide ample navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 21 May 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:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia by year[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 into cats suggested by nom. delldot ∇. 16:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia in 2000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The low number of pages being categorised, and the patchy coverage in terms of years, makes categorising Australian aviation incidents by year in this way, redundant. The only other category apparently doing this appears to be the USA, although that at least involves multiple pages and consistent years. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 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:Wrigley Company[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. It's a shame to do that, since there is consensus that the names should match (just not what the name should be). I can't move a page without a move discussion on the talk page, of course, but I think that discussion should be had there. It seems likely that some of the folks who argued to rename would agree with renaming the article instead, but didn't weigh back in here after that was suggested. (If the move discussion results in a decision to keep the page where it is, I think it would be wise to immediately bring this back to CFD, and hopefully the folks who argued for moving the article will then be ok with moving the cat instead.) delldot ∇. 16:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wrigley Company to Category:Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name of company and the lead article, Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure in this situation.. look at the other articles in the category, we have Wrigley Building, Wrigley Field, Wrigley Square, Wrigley Family.. maybe a simple 2-word category name that follows this consistent pattern would be better.. Also I'm kinda iffy about punctuation in Category names for some reason.. -- œ™ 03:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to match main article as is standard practice; no reason for an exception here. Hmains (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article per usual practice. Occuli (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category name, but rename the article to match the category. The inclusion of the abbreviation "Wm." in the article name is peculiar and disquieting, particularly when that abbreviation is not in the lead sentence for the article. Moreover, from sources like this webpage and the company homepage, it appears that "Wrigley Company" is a preferred name for the company. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the above would be the best option. -- œ™ 12:11, 27 May 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:Treaties of the Teutonic Knights[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: self-withdrawal. I can see this is going nowhere fast. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Treaties of the Teutonic Knights to Category:Treaties of the State of the Teutonic Order
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is more correct because in all cases it was the State concluding the treaty: the Knights acted as the "diplomats" of the State that signed the treaty. The main article for the State is State of the Teutonic Order. I would have no objection to a redirect remaining on the nominated category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose certainly without the 2nd "the", but anyway I'm extremely dubious the "state" had any legal existence other than through the order. Medieval treaties were normally concluded between monarchs not states, and here the order was a corporate body but the state was not- "in all cases it was the State concluding the treaty: the Knights acted as the "diplomats" of the State that signed the treaty" is not supported by the article that I can see, & is flat wrong imo. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added second "the"; thx. "I'm extremely dubious the "state" had any legal existence other than through the order" Of course it didn't—we're talking pre-Westphalia (1648) here, so if you go back that far no State really had much of a "legal existence" in the sense we think of today. But this would at least conform the name to the general pattern of Category:Treaties by country, which names the categories for treaties after States. I was using "diplomat" in the colloquial sense, hence the quotes, not in the modern legal sense of the word. Of course it was just monarchs, rulers, and knights signing treaties pre-1648—they wouldn't have thought of themselves acting for an amporphous "State" in the post-Westphalian sense, but that doesn't stop us from today talking about and categorizing "treaties of" specific kingdoms rather than treaties of individual kings. This would kind of be the equivalent of Category:Treaties of King John of England—but we don't have that, it just goes in Category:Treaties of England. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't see a problem with the current name, which is more accurate anyway. I don't believe that "State of the Teutonic Order" is a very common term. And of course the Middle Ages was full of Republics with the same legal status as today; but this was'nt one of them. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the Middle Ages was full of Republics with the same legal status as today". I wouldn't go that far. It was quite a different legal status if you consider it from the view of international relations, which I think is what we are talking about. The only "problem" with the category right now is that it is inconsistent with almost all other categories in the treaty tree, that's all. Either name could be correct, I think, which is why I suggested that a redirect would be appropriate if the change were made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that much consistency in the category in fact. The odd question is why it is only in a German category, when little of their territories are still in modern Germany. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't see that much consistency in the category in fact." Really? We must be looking at different category trees, then. Category:Treaties by country currently has 235 immediate subcategories, and dozens of grandchildren categories; almost all use the "Treaties of STATE" format, including the categories for pre-1648 States. (Because of that, this change technically would qualify as a speedy rename; I brought it here in case there was a good reason not to conform this one to the standard, and I haven't heard any such reason given.) The only other ones I can find that are formatted in a different way is Category:Treaties involving the Hanseatic League and Category:Treaties of indigenous peoples of North America.
Or did you mean consistency within this category alone? I'm not sure.
I don't know why it is in Category:Treaties of Germany, but it's been there since it was created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant the German category, which has the Hanseatic League. This should be in that but also in others, & I don't believe in making a fetish of consistency, especially if it involves distorting the facts. What are medieval Papal treaties called, or those of the other military orders, or Islamic ones? One size doesn't fit all in the Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Islamic ones from the Middle Ages aren't categorized yet, and Papal ones seem to have been put in Category:Treaties of the Holy See regardless of their date. I also don't know of any other categories for treaties of military orders. Although there is Category:Treaties of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I queried at the start, State of the Teutonic Order is just an invented term (only 437 gbook hits, by no means all using it as a name) to distinguish it from Teutonic Knights - I have no problem with that. The German term is "Ordensstaat" or "Order's State", but that won't quite do turned into English. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We work with what we have in article space. If it's not a term that was invented by Wikipedia, I still don't understand what the problem is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 26 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_21&oldid=1138394303"