Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15[edit]

Category:Fish Hooks[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated and unnecessary category. Only 3 articles and unlikely to be more. Fish Hooks is a cartoon series with each episode running for ~11 minutes and there are unlikely to be individual episode or character articles. There is already sufficient linking in each of the 3 articles to negate the need for a category AussieLegend (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If kept, we might want to disambiguate the title. Pichpich (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2011 (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.

Go-oo[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: Closed. This appears to be a request to merge two articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge with LibreOffice as the project is now discontinued as the project shares LibreOffice's beliefs. The changes are still there from Go-oo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.171.112 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2011 (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:Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't know what this category is supposed to contain beyond the main article Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure. No other impact crater has its own category (for similar reasons I presume). Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete And the category is uncategorised; no parent category! Hugo999 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2011 (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.

Nuclear power stations by reactor type[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: A mix:

Keep

Rename

Create

Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boiling water reactors to Category:Nuclear power stations using boiling water reactors

Propose renaming Category:Advanced boiling water reactors to Category:Nuclear power stations using advanced boiling water reactors

Propose renaming Category:Pressurized water reactors to Category:Nuclear power stations using pressurized water reactors

Propose renaming Category:Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors to Category:Nuclear power stations using Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A follow-up to this nomination and result in order to standardize the naming format of all of the subcategories of Category:Nuclear power stations by reactor type. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category:Pressurized water reactors because it doesn't just include power stations - it also covers naval reactors, which are not commercial power stations.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nomination assumes that all reactors in a power station consisting of multiple reactors are of the same kind. Is this true now? Will it necessarily be true in the future? Alternatively, a given power station would be placed in two or more of these newly named categories, which would be confusing. Hmains (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an example Dungeness Nuclear Power Station has two decommisioned Magnox reactors and an operational AGR -although you could argue that Dungeness A and B are two separate power stations at the same location.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Hmains, isn't this actually an argument in favor of renaming? Categorizing plant X in both Category:Boiling water reactors and Category:Advanced boiling water reactors seems way more confusing than putting it in both Category:Nuclear power stations using boiling water reactors and Category:Nuclear power stations using advanced boiling water reactors. Maybe it's just me but doesn't the second format precisely avoid the pitfall of associating a plant with a single reactor? And re: Nigel, perhaps a good solution is to have a separate category for naval reactors anyway. All in all, I suppose this amounts to a weak support for the renaming. Pichpich (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right since the underlying articles are not 'xxx nuclear reactors' but 'nuclear power stations' Hmains (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The “Advanced” and “Economic Simplified” boiling water reactors seem to be names of particular models of GE/Hitachi boiling water reactors for power stations rather than a general type.
Hence I suggest retaining Category:Boiling water reactors, with subcategories:
Category:Nuclear power stations using boiling water reactors (new) plus
Category:Nuclear power stations using Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors (rename)
Category:Nuclear power stations using Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (rename) PS: should it be all-caps like the previous category?
Likewise retain Category:Pressurized water reactors, with subcategories:
Category:Nuclear power stations using pressurized water reactors (new) plus existing subcategories for power stations using AP1000, CPR-1000, European Pressurised Reactors or WER reactors.

The first subcategory of each main category (BWR or PWR) would be used for nuclear power stations unless the manufacturer and model was known (and had a subcategory), and would move them out of the parent categories, which would be used for general articles and articles on particular makes/models of reactor. Hugo999 (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support suggestion by Hugo999 retaining the main category and creating subcategories. Beagel (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2011 (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.