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 no objections. Kbdank71 16:00, 13 December 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 match main article and leave category redirect. Kbdank71 15:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that the difference between 'transport' and 'transportation' is a superficial one rooted in differences between varieties of English, and this is precisely why there is no reason to not rename. Inconsistency may not be a big deal, as was argued in the previous discussion, but neither is establishing consistency in the top-level category. For national categories, the appropriate national variety of English is and should continue to be preserved; the top-level categories, however, should match the main article.
Rename per nom and retain redirect. I think that this is a well thought-out nomination and rationale. The "transport" vs "transportation" ENGVAR changes should occur on the by-country categories, but the top parent category ultimately should match the main article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is a difference in UK (transport) vs American English (transportation), to which no WP preference is to be given. No good reason to change the top level category just to show preference to UK English at the top of everything. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom stated, it's to match the main article, not to show preference to UK English. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Good Ol'factory wrote: I mainly use US English and, thus, have no personal preference for British English. -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This division by English dialect is unnecessary. Everyone knows what both words mean, and since "transport" is preferred by the vast majority of the world, we Yanks can bend this one time. Let's name every one of these categories "transport."--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. In a blizzard of Speedy renames yesterday, I believe I came to understand how "transport" and "transportation" break down on Wikipedia (which may or may not reflect actual usage):
All European, African, South American, Oceanic, Caribbean and Central American nations use "transport" in their main articles, as well as Antarctica and all of mainland Asia. South Korea waffles a bit, but the main article is at Transport in South Korea.
The big three of North America (USA, Mexico, Canada) and the US Virgin Islands use "transportation," though Canada waffles a bit as well.
Taiwan and the Philippines apparently use "transportation." The rest of island Asia uses "transport."
I don't know what the situation in the Arctic is, but it currently uses "transportation."
So we have six current nations that use "transportation," plus possibly the Arctic. Everywhere else in the world seems to be aligned with "transport." So I'm confident in my position that all non-country categories should be "transport"-based.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This a language issue and this should remain here. Of course the children can and should reflect local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the main article name. Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 8 December 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: For consistency with the head article, Falmouth, Cornwall, and to avoid possible confusion with the other People from Falmouth, wherever categories. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 29 November 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:relisted on dec 13. Kbdank71 16:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge to sole parent. (I have nominated the other current parent cat for deletion, below) per WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Category contents consist of a handful of articles about metaphor (to varying degrees) that can better be contained in the parent category, if at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if people prefer, rename to simply Category:Metaphor (singular, per parent article Metaphor ) as a container for sub-categories and articles about such overall theories, allowing us to repurpose Category:Metaphors to take the place of Category:Metaphors by type as the place to find different kind/types of metaphors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 2 December 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:relisted on dec 13. Kbdank71 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge This category represents a misunderstanding -- or misuse -- of the term "philosophy" A "theory" about a trope is not philosophical theory, as it is currently categorized. More abstract articles about tropes should simply be categorized in the eponymous category, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to above, we could also go the route of creating Category:Trope (singular, per parent article Trope (literature)) as a container for sub-categories and articles about such overall theories, allowing us to repurpose Category:Tropes to take the place of Category:Tropes by type as the place to find different kind/types of tropes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 2 December 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. Kbdank71 14:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Seems to me this small grouping of articles and subcategories could be more simply upmerged, to aid navigation and reduce confusion over what a 'rebel role' is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, after removing Brigand (a disambiguation page) and Cangaço (already in the subcats). The category title is ambiguous, actually, as I initially thought that it would contain subcategories of rebels by the role they played in a rebellion (e.g., leaders, recruiters, fighters, and so on). -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This doesn't make much sense as currently constituted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Rebels by type, which is more accurate. The "grouping" is in fact rather large, and pulls in various types of people that would otherwise be all over the place. Some of the local sub-cats of Category:Rebels should be moved here instead. Johnbod (talk) 10:29, 8 December 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 no objections. Kbdank71 15:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete as too granular. FYI: I am currently copy-editing the article on the symbolic baton, itself. The article already explains the difference with a swagger stick and with other baton-like articles. Really, we barely have a decent article on the symbolic baton, so a category on symbolic batons is way overkill (also the text distinguishes swagger sticks as having a functional element so they don't really belong in the category, anyway. It's not like we have a bunch of articles on individual famous batons or something. Basically this is a tiny category with no likelihood (or history) of growth, and represents overcategorization. TCO (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been two weeks. When do you rule on deleting the category?TCO (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is somewhat of a backlog in the closing of these discussions: see WP:CFDW. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 13 December 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:relisted on dec 13. Kbdank71 16:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poor choice of name, as it may be confused with Filming locations. I am not married to the suggested rename target, however. Anyone got a better idea? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you're right. I didn't notice this other category and likely the creator of the latest one didn't, either. Lots of films get shot in lots of places. I think there does need to be merge, with this combined category restricted to areas or facilities uniquely or primarily defined by filming activity, it seems to me. I'd be happy with Category:Film production districts as the target, with the other two merged into it and clear description written. I'll tag Category:Filming locations for this CfD, too. Oh, and the first category should have been deleted, it seems to me. It was closed as rename last year even though the only !vote was for deletion, here. Otto was right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 1 December 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:Delete as a needless and rather poorly worded duplication of existing category trees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it seems a little difficult to decide whether or not words are about words. Occuli (talk) 23:15, 2 December 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:upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. While I can see what the creator is going for -- that these are somehow selected lists of works, and that there is a critical factor at work -- I still worry that it is an WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE concept for a category. Maybe a name change rather than an upmerging? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ???. The reason this category falls outside of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE is because it's a fact that the articles are about "best books" lists (which means that the Penguins-related articles should probably be removed). jonkerz♠ 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Regardless of what the articles are about, a category named "favorite" anything is indeed subjective. Favorite of whom? --Kbdank71 16:30, 13 December 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:Merge. We don't categorize band members by "Former" or "Current" status.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. True. Occuli (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. JackJud (talk) 15:04, 30 November 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:Documentary films about guerrilla warfare[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: I work primarily in the Doc films area, so I'll restrict myself to this medium for now: but this grouping is an example of WP:OC, imo. I don't believe that the three subcategories in this container cat belong, as not all films about these three wars deal with guerrilla warfare. There likely are some films out there that do, however, and if someone can populate it with pertinent articles, I'll consider withdrawing this. What we may decide here will impact Category:Guerrilla warfare by medium, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 29 November 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:rename. Some change is needed, and while no one idea predominated, the nominated rename gets the most support. And man, is Category:Former pupils by school in England a mess. We should try to build consensus around a structure and stick with it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to provide some clarity for readers, who will otherwise be have no clue what this category is about, unless they happen to be closely associated with the King's College School in Wimbledon, London. If editors are really determined to retain in some form the schools' own-in-house jargon, then it could be renamed to Category:Old King's (King's College School, Wimbledon) (with "Wimbledon" included to disambiguate from King's College School, Cambridge) .... but that really seems like a horribly convoluted construct, and "Former pupils of King's College School, Wimbledon" is taken directly from the explanatory text on the category page BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I've never been a fan of the Former pupils of St Cake's construction, it seems to me to dumb-down our coverage. We use lots of words on Wikipedia that some readers will be unfamiliar with - but when they shew up in blue, readers can click on them to find out what they mean! DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from overlooking the need for disambiguation, you are arguing for a change in the guidelines. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we name things by the name they are generally known as, even if that is not their formal title. This is not one of the widely-known schools like Eton (whose "Old Etonians" is a widely-known label), so the common usage in a case like this is the generic descriptive form rather than the in-house jargon. A reader encountering "Old King's" in a list of categories will have no clue from the article what it is about, and this hinders the utility of the category for its main purpose as a navigational device.
The name of an article can of course be explained in the body text. For example "British Prime Minister Tony Blair went skiing with his chum George Bush, the former US president, in the exclusive Alpine resort of Basingstoke" explains all three key terms to a reader unfamiliar with any of them ... but categories appear without explanation at the bottom of the article, so their bare names need to make sense to a reader who has no familiarity with the topic other than reading the article on that page.
The school's own jargon terminology can of course be explained in the text of the category and of the article, so the reader will get the same information without having to navigate a guessing-game constructed of navigational signposts rendered in obscure jargon. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Former pupils" is not common usage in England (it's a Scottish term). Schools have old boys and old girls. DuncanHill (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some schools use that terminology, but not all. And the highly ambiguous "Old King's" doesn't use it either. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If "We don't categorize band members by "Former" or "Current" status" (per above), then why should we make an exception for pupils of schools? Let them eat (St.) Cake. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, perferably per nom, but to Category:Old King's (King's College School, Wimbledon) as a back-up. But the current name is unacceptably ambiguous, in my opinion. (I won't even get into how as a pluralized collective noun, "Old King's" is hopelessly deficient because I have no doubt that that is the term that is actually used by alumni of the school.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete If we are not supposed to categorize this way, then just delete it. If it is kept, it really needs to be renamed WP:JARGON and the ambiguousness of the current name. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former pupils of King's College School, Wimbledon, with a distant back-up preference for Category:Old King's (King's College School, Wimbledon). (Category:Old King's (Wimbledon) just doesn't offer the clarity aimed for.) Increasingly I agree that the Old Fooians form is more confusing than helpful and this can stand as a test case to get better clarity. Pupils is the most common term for people who go to schools and "former pupils" is the most descriptive. Pre-empting anyone who wants to suggest "alumni", that term in the UK applies only to universities not schools. Strong oppose deletion. The schools a person attended are a prominent and notable feature of British society. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:46, 3 December 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 no objections noted. Kbdank71 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate from the many other High Courts listed at High Court (disambiguation). The head article is (rather inappropriately) at High Court judge, but while we don't yet have articles on judges of the other High Courts, the category will be improperly applied if we don't disambiguate it. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection as category creator. Tim! (talk) 19:28, 29 November 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. Kbdank71 15:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category (i.e., not part of a pattern), containing no articles and only one category, Category:2100 in science. I have doubts about that category as well, but it can fend for itself. It wouldn't become uncategorized even if this category were deleted from it, which it need not be, as Category:2031 in science through Category:2099 in science also exist. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 11:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of a pattern, the same way 100 is part of a pattern containing only 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as none of Category:2031 through Category:2099 exist. A correct formulation would probably be merge to Category:2100s, but the sole member category is probably not worth adding to that category. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create the earlier ones: eg Category:2031 may not yet exist but it is not empty. (Note that all up to Category:2030 already exist.) Occuli (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody created Category:2099 incorrectly. If the categories are to be created, we need a bot to handle the creation properly. Category:20''ab'' should have:
Keep so long as it has actual content in it, which it currently does. If you have doubts about the subcategory, nominate that for deletion, and then if successful you can just tag this category for C1 deletion. VegaDark (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, subcategories within a category count as "content", this is why C1 deletions are not permitted unless the category is completely empty of both pages and subcategories. VegaDark (talk) 08:47, 3 December 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 no objections. Kbdank71 16:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete: The category includes 3 articles which are lists that are related to the character Iron Man. Two of them are lists of episodes relevant to two Iron Man animated series which are included in the Iron Man TV category and the other is a list of Iron Man villains which is included in the main Iron Man category. The category is redundant, has no room for growth, and only features articles which are similar in a very superficial way. Fandraltastic (talk) 10:17, 29 November 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:Horizon League Conference men's basketball seasons[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 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:Talk pages with misplaced main page templates[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. No template, no category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for talk pages having article page, user page, etc. templates posted on them when the template in fact is intended for use on a basic namespace page. I came across this category when looking at Main page categories (e.g. Category:Main Page, Category:Main page, etc.). Generally, "main page" is for THE main page. The templates covered by this category are intended to be place in basic namespace, so I think the suggested new name fits. Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Talk pages with misplaced basic namespace templates, since "with" is more common than "having" in cleanup category names, ormerge (along with the category below) to Category:Pages with misplaced templates. The two categories contain few pages and share the same problem, so why separate them? It is generally undesirable to mix basic namespace and talk namespace pages but, then again, a failure to differentiate between basic and talk namespace pages is what's being categorized. -- Black Falcon(talk) 16:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category talk page says the category is needed for the infoboxneeded template, when it's placed on talk pages instead of articles. But per tfd, the infoboxneeded template was deleted in 2007. --Kbdank71 17:14, 13 December 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:Main pages with misplaced talk page templates[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: This category is for article pages, user pages, etc. having talk page templates posted on them when the template in fact is intended for use on a discussion page. I came across this category when looking at Main page categories (e.g. Category:Main Page, Category:Main page, etc.). Generally, "main page" is for THE main page. The pages covered by this category are in basic namespace, so I think the suggested new name fits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Proposed speedy rename to Oblique-wing aircraft was objected to on WP:COMMON grounds. That's OK, but still needs "Aircraft" added to non-hyphened name. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 00:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding "aircraft" to the category name. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 05:28, 29 November 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. Kbdank71 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a common, generic, descriptive term should be applied to all categories even though some countries may have English names that differ from this. In the case which you bring up, the use of the term state will become confusing if applied as you suggest if other countries, such as Brazil and the US which which have "states" as subordinate entities below the federal government, are classified also per that subordinate level. __meco (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 29 November 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:Quasi-public entities 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:no consensus. Kbdank71 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I understand the need for a category which covers companies that are partly controlled by the government, however, this name doesn't sit well with me. And as this is a type of category that would be relevant for many countries I think a name that could travel around such a structure needs a little thinking about. meco (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that in the U.S. this is the most commonly used term for these; it's certainly not a WP-created neologism. "Quasi-public entity" and "quasi-public entities" both get thousands of hits on google. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --If Quasi-public is the US term we should Keep it for US entities, even if it is not the term used elsewhere. This should not mean that that we must rename similar categories for other countries that use other terminology. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this category can be equated with the above section nominations. Those are wholly-owned (by the government) entities whereas this category deals with partly-owned entities. This distinction seems wise to preserve. __meco (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. __meco (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is I withdraw my proposal above. There is no way that the Category:Federal Reserve (Federal Reserve System) is a government-owned company or corporation. Its article states that it is a mixed private (banks) and government (appointed governors) organization. In other words it is "quasi-public" Hmains (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really should withdraw your proposal without voting to keep as is, otherwise you appear to be oblivious to the actual nomination. __meco (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he/she can, but there is nothing in their posts to suggest this is their position. I'm stating that simply to suggest that is the extent of their de facto position and that issuing a 'keep' vote is done inadvertently (presumably based on not having perceived the distinction between wholly government-owned and joint public–private ownership as other editors also seem to have conflated). __meco (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting because I can read their post and find a clear indication that they want it kept as is. Starting with "keep as is'" and concluding with "There is no way that the Category:Federal Reserve (Federal Reserve System) is a government-owned company or corporation. Its article states that it is a mixed private (banks) and government (appointed governors) organization. In other words it is "quasi-public". It seems quite clear to me what they are saying here. If you think they are mistaken, that's another issue, but not really a justification for telling them they should change their vote. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale argues against something which nobody has asserted and which is not an issue of this category or nomination. That is why I suggest Hmains's vote to keep is based on a misunderstanding. Technically it's a straw man, except that I find reason to believe it's rather a misunderstanding. __meco (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Others (including himself) have previously suggested that the category be merged to Category:Government-owned companies in the United States. He is pointing out why that is not a good idea. At the time of his comment, Mike Selinker was in favour of this proposal. When you told him he needed to change his opinion, Mike Selinker still appeared to be in favour of that proposal. The fact that he hasn't addressed the other specific proposals that have come afterwards may or may not be an oversight, but it doesn't mean his opinion is wrong or that it needs to be disregarded. Perhaps he prefers the current name to the alternate proposals. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current name. As I commented above, I'm pretty sure this is the well-accepted name for these entities in the United States. Category:Partially government-owned corporations in the United States is another good descriptive term, but it's essentially a descriptive neologism, which is unnecessary since an established name already exists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:41, 6 December 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:relisted on dec 13. Kbdank71 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge to the by state category. By state is the established breakout in the US. There is nothing in the category introduction that would indicate why 109 West is notable for this activity. If kept, rename to Category:Volcanic fields of the United States west of 109°W. Note that in effect this covers all of the US since if you continue west from 109W, you reach it from the east. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 11 November 201--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)0 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the 109 line runs through extreme western Colorado and New Mexico as I understand it. Both of these are in the Western United States so renaming would include more area. Don't know if this is an issue or not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Western United States is ok, the volcanism on eastern USA is from the Pangaea break up and older. The Davis Mountains are in Texas, the Basin and Range Province includes Texas and Mexico, and I thought that I got whole Colorado with 109°W (my mistake). Normaly State lines and river courses flow through geologic faults and boundaries. So I think the compromise is ok. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everyone is happy. I still say delete after moving the contents to the by state tree, or as pointed out late in the discussion to the Canada and Mexico and other country trees as needed. If the purpose of the category is to have the activity for the last 100 Ma, then that should be created with a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. After further consideration, Categories by state/province does sound like a better idea to me. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Western United States needs to be avoided since there are several definitions. If you want to go with something like Category:Volcanism of North America that would be better as the home for the country categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't decide between the volcanism of the Basin and Range Province in North America or the volcanism in Western US, then it is better to have the Categories by state in each article. And sort the state categories both ways. How about Category:Volcanic fields of North America after 100 Ma, so we do not have to know if it belongs to the Basin and Range Province or not, it'd "include" (just the epoch) Tucson Mountain Caldera (Santa Catalina Mountains), Arizona; 73 Ma (Large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province). Basin and Range Province has to be avoided as Western United States. It is too recent, its extension (geology) is too recent. The Nevadan orogeny, the Sevier orogeny, the Laramide orogeny, the Basin and Range Province and the North American part of the American Cordillera are linked to the Faralon Plate subduction, its slab break off and its slab width. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:30, 4 December 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.
