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 concept of a Digimon "family" has no real world notability and even, to quote the category page, "little actual bearing on gameplay". Most of the categories are populated almost entirely by redirects; this crufty information appears to have been shifted to the category space due to the fact it plainly does not belong in the mainspace. I am also nominating all of the subcategories of the main category. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an example of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact neither this concept nor these subjects have anything resembling real-world notability, you feel we need a category for it? J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will teach me to comment without examining the contents. These redirects do not lead to sections, but only to a page of one-word entries. Changing my opinion to delete. - Fayenatic(talk) 22:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the articles into a list and delete everything (or redirect everything to a list, and delete all the categories) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have List of Digimon- we don't need to list these hundreds of minor characters in several different ways. The pages could do with some love, but I think most of that love would be lovingly tearing out the crufty stuff... J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 10 July 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Ungrammatical and unnecessary category redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering the number of cases for renaming that appear here for just this type of naming, it seems likely to be needed. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:19, 7 July 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.
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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. They are incorrectly formed plurals: one type of thing, two types of thing. Cf one can of beans, two cans of beans. A few of these have already been renamed, see log, but there are several more. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Two types of thing" sounds awkward. The cat contains a class of multiple things on a theme, not just a bunch of one example of it. I wonder if this is an ENGVAR issue (whether the class-name gets pluralized when talking about examples that each individually map to a single type but but overall a large pool of types)? I just googled for "eyes on their face" and "eyes on their faces", the latter is 9x number of hits (obviously not strong methodology, but still significant difference). DMacks (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it might have been better to voice opposition to the previous round of these. Does "two types of thing" really sound more incorrect than "one type of things"? "A hospital is a type of health care facilities"? It's easy, you think of the singular, then make the plural. Eyes and faces have nothing to do with it, though google for once gives the right result; but words such as "sort", "kind", "variety" and "species" behave similarly. One species of monkey, two species of monkey, etc. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow CFD religiously, so I don't know this previous round you mention. Link? But anyway, yes, that former does sound more incorrect. Google gives 50% more "species of monkeys" than "species of monkey" even though the former also includes cases where they are talking about a single entry in that group ("a new species of monkey"). DMacks (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commentfor now. While some of these may be more correct, they just don't read well. Also something like Category:Types of church building is ambiguous since it could also mean methods for building churches. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the casual reader would find this wording to be mistaken. Most of the suggestions sound awkward to me, although I do not quite know how to explain it. Arbitrarily0(talk) 04:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change: Per nom, the current names are grammatically incorrect. I'd propose an alternative choice: "Function types", "Probability distribution types" etc. Not only is correct but sounds correct.--RDBury (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The new names are completely unidiomatic to me, as an educated, native U.S. English speaker. Even in my academic papers I routinely use phrases such as "two types of models". It is true that there are some phrases where the singular is idiomatic: "Two types of education". But in most of these it sounds extremely odd. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search on nytimes.com and guardian.co.uk for "two types of" in quotes and both seem to use plural nouns. Is there any style guide that would require, for example, "two types of person" instead of "two types of people"? In my searches, the Guardian uses both forms, and the NY Times only the latter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to push this if there is a consensus that it is incorrect to do so. I would at that point support an alternative rename, as these plurals are to my ear profoundly illogical and ungrammatical, but that is just my opinion. I looked for style-guidance. The United Nations (internal) style guide for editors offers this, while Thomson and Martinet, A Practical English Grammar, the work I used as a reference manual when teaching English, offers no direct advice but uses the plural "types of [thing]s" once out of nine uses of "types of": I can't confirm if that one is a scanning error as my hard-copy is of a different edition. I find neither to be totally conclusive, both to lean towards the "types of thing" construction. Similarly, this search is not conclusive, but leans strongly in the same direction, while this one appears to lean, inconclusively, the other way (ignoring uncountable nouns that do not permit of a plural in both cases, of course). As someone has already suggested, this looks like regional variation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:14, 9 July 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:UEFA Champions League Final Goal Scorers[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 is a category too far. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is a category too far. This is an interesting factoid about a player, not a defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a signigicant group of players, the biggest annual association football match. Roslagen (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tenuous connection at best, not a defining characteristic of them as players. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how many categories are we aiming for? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Occuli has described the situation perfectly. This kind of category is nothing but a slippery slope. GiantSnowman 23:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've slightly misunderstood the nature of this category, which has a rather ambiguous title. It is intended to include players who have scored a goal in the final match of the Champions League, rather than the final goal. (Despite its name, the Champions League is decided on a knock-out basis!) -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:58, 9 July 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.
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 and put 1922 up for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: I cannot decide if it is best to have "Irish sport" or "Irish sports" in this and similar category titles. The former maybe more inclusive and include all forms of sport played in Ireland. I think the latter could be misunderstood to include just Gaelic games which are played, almost exclusively, only in Ireland. Djln--Djln (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change. This is logical to make this consist with its sister categories. On the issue of sport verses sports, there is no difference. They are just regional variant uses of the same term. I really do not care which one is used, and would have no objection to renaming each year to "X in Irish sport", but I feel all the year categories should consistently use one form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 7 July 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.
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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article is titled Mazar-i-Sharif, as is its category, whereas Mazar-e-Sharif redirects to Mazar-i-Sharif. Coyets (talk) 08:21, 6 July 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.
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. We avoid categorization of people by parent or by ancestor. This is yet another example. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that a "children of" category is less extreme than a general "descendants of" category, but we have deleted Children of Elijah Muhammad, Children of Presidents of Romania, Frank Sinatra's children, and The Beatles' children, among others. I could live with the wives category, since there is quite a bit written about the women because they were wives of Henry VIII. There's not the same sort of stuff written about these people merely because they were children of Henry VIII. Making a Category:Family of Henry VIII would strike me as a bit artificial (not to say that you were proposing that or anything). 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Upmerge into Category:Henry VIII of England. This should also be done for Category:Wives of Henry VIII. I see no reason to specifiy Person X family as different from the category for person X. If we do go with merging the wives and the children into Category:Henry VIII of England family or Category:Family of Henry VIII of England we should leave the of England, since there are other Henry VIII. If these categories are not deleted merged they should at least have the "of England" added. Also both the wives and the children category should us the X of Henry or the Henry's X form, the fact that each uses a different form is odd. Also Category:Obama family is not actually analogous. That is one of many family categories, along with things like Category:Pratt–Romney family. Thus the equivalent quesiton is do we have a category for the Tudor family, which I expect we do even if I am not usre exactly how it is named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a better analogy to Category:Obama family is Category:Tyler family or Category:Clinton family. Category:Bush family is somewhat similar, but has a longevity of notable people that the Obama family lacks. I am not sure anyone else in the Obama family would merit an article in wikipedia without the current US president having become notable. With the Bush family even if George H. W. Bush had died in combat in World War II there would still be notable members of the family, although probably not enough to merit a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT! While it appears to have seven members, two of the members are only speculated to be Henry's children, and three of them are conversely well enough known to be Henry's children that a category is silly. I don't think the other two (the dead baby Henrys and Fitzroy, who arguably is also well-known enough not to make a category necessary) justify the existence of a category. Note that the analogous category to Category:Bush family is Category:House of Tudor, which exists and which is a parent cat of this cat, not a hypothetical Category:Family of Henry VIII. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not an 'essential, "defining" feature of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)'. However, Category:Wives of Henry VIII is very much such a feature, and very much has been written about the wives of Henry VIII, and they are most frequently referred to as such. The category wives of Henry VIII is the only 'wives of ...' category with a main article apart from Category:Wives of Muhammad. Coyets (talk) 09:16, 7 July 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.
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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all the buildings listed were all built as telephone exchanges, some were torn down many years before the term 'telecomms' was invented. (It seems a couple are incongruously categorised for either definition.) Telephone exchange is still the commonly-used term for them. Ephebi (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems rather that a supercategory for more general telecomm buildings should be built instead, as this category already properly categorizes things. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:22, 7 July 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.
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:Relist Indian people, rename others. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least the one for people, because the article is at Indian people and I think the categories and the articles should match in these cases. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename the term Indian is ambiguous. This is a bigger problem with categories then it is with article titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support two for culture and society, but relist Indian people along with its sub-categories to gain more attention, even though commons:Category:People of India has taken this approach already. Note that Culture and Society also have sub-categories which should be renamed if this goes through. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:48, 12 July 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.
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. There certainly isn't consensus for deletion. If the article is renamed, we can reconsider.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is actually Earth station. There are some articles which are not about a particular earth station, which I think could go into the main category Category:Earth stations. The articles on particular installations would then be in a country subcategory. The Erdfunkstelle subcategories of images relate to German ground stations. NB: While many earth stations are used for telecommunications links, others are used for monitoring (spying), military purposes or for communication with craft used for scientific probes. And there are also broadcasting/television satellites. Hugo999 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to the talk page of Talk:Earth station, the WP:COMMONNAME is Ground station, so the article should be renamed. I've only seen it as "ground station", so I don't think calling it "Earth station" is a good idea. Instead the category tree should be renamed to "ground station". 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Earth station article is about a more general subject than satellite ground stations, so these stations are a subtopic of the main article... 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 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.
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. "Oz" is quite ambiguous, so this needs to be renamed to something. Land of Oz seems to be the closest thing we have to a "main article". Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the orginal books seem to not fit under either the rubric of "franchise" and much less under the rubric of "media property".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, currently I would say they are part of the now-existing "franchise". There's no real overall "owner" of all of these, however, so you are right that "franchise" is not quite usage for this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Oz (franchise) - categorization works well enough with approximation in its naming conventions. This convention does not necessarily indicate centralised ownershipl; it would be useful to note this on the page for Category:Media franchises. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:19, 12 July 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.
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. This categorizes fungi of the genus Tuber. This is not the principal meaning of tuber and is likely to be confused with plant tubers, like potatoes, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is not about potatoes. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to (genus). Potatoes are in the genus Solanum and therefore disambiguation to (fungus) is not required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, even though the other meaning uses the plural category:Tubers, and merge the head category Category:Truffles (small category) into this, keeping all its head categories. The disambiguation page should be removed. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all truffles are of the genus Tuber. The ones you eat are, but I think there are other ones outside of the genus (though I am no expert). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:02, 12 July 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.
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-close: category creator has agreed to name changes here in and in further discussion elsewhere.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The WP article about the play called The Life and Death of King John is at King John (play), and I think that's by far the more common name, so I suggest that these categories should be renamed to match. See also nomination immediately below. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I went with the article title when creating the category because I wasn't sure which to use. I'm fine with renaming it. Aristophanes68(talk) 02:14, 6 July 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.
Disambiguating references to Shakespearean plays[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-close: creator has agreed to name changes here and in further discussion elsewhere. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These categories are grouping works based on various plays by Shakespeare. The names need to be disambiguated to make it clear that they are not referring to the historical figures that the plays are named after. In these cases, the plays are not the primary meaning of the names. The works are based on the play called "Julius Caesar", they are not based on the person Julius Caesar. So in each case, I have used the same disambiguation used by the article about the play in question. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creator agrees: I made those categories and didn't realize until well into the process that they might be confusing. Plus I wasn't sure how to make one proposal for the entire set. I definitely support this change. Apologies! Aristophanes68(talk) 02:13, 6 July 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.
