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: Category is now empty--the previous inhabitants have all been redirected (they were fictional characters, not independently notable, in unverified articles). Drmies (talk) 21:31, 10 June 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: I'd like to add several more programs to this category and I think the proposed name (the same as in dmoz.org) is more suitable. Another solution would be to create a new category "Curve fitting software", but although there are separate articles for Regression analysis and Curve fitting, regression software means almost the same as curve-fitting software, so IMO it would be better to have one cat with longer name. Wojdyr (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, curve fitting is not necessarily performed through regression (eg Spline curve) and, in general, multiple regression does not relate to curve fitting. Despite this, many packages perform both types of activity. Whether a combined category would be useful, I am not too sure. I feel the dmoz Open Directory category[1] was a poor choice but I agree it offers a precedent. Thincat (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind a separate category for "Curve fitting software", but I suppose it would have a large overlap with the "Regression software" category. Wojdyr (talk) 12:56, 16 June 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: I don't know what's the general policy for intersections of software domain and operating systems (I don't have much experience in editing wikipedia). In this case there are probably no Linux-only apps in this cat. Several entries that I know are programs that run on all major platforms (Windows, OSX as well as Linux). Since these entries are missing from the parent cat (Plotting Software) it may be confusing for someone who is looking for Windows software. I propose to move all entries to either the parent Category:Plotting software or to sibling Category:Free plotting software. Wojdyr (talk) 14:07, 10 June 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 delete. Frank | talk 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No way this category can be given a meaningful definition. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't be meaningful, and more eyes needed on this editor, maybe a mentor. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Creator does not know what he/she is doing and how categorization works here.Jasper Deng(talk) 17:10, 10 June 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. Key article is at December 2010 lunar eclipse and the current name is clumsy. It's also impossible to get two lunar eclipses in one month, so the exact date is unnecessary. If it's named this way for sorting purposes, well, that's what piping's for. Grutness...wha? 07:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extremely unlikely that there will ever be any more material other than the single article on the eclipse along with some associated images which are included in, and thus accessible through, the article itself. The category serves no purpose. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons and delete per Fayenatic. These are all freely licensed files and should be hosted Commons so that other projects can use them as well. Jafeluv (talk) 07:41, 29 June 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.
Comment As per this map, Imperial Valley is not the same as Imperial County. Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, they are not totally contiguous. But according to the article Imperial Valley (California), "Locally, the terms "Imperial Valley" and "Imperial County" are used synonymously." In any case, with regard to this category, there do not appear to be any cities in the one that are not also in the other. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a CDP (Census Designated Place) called Palo Verde population 117 that appears to be in Imperial County and not in Imperial Valley. I'm not satisfied that an argument has been made for deletion. I don't think anyone is claiming that there are cities missing in one or the other. I don't know why we have the list of cities in Imperial Valley in the first place, and being a duplicate of the list of cities in Imperial County doesn't tell me that I don't also want a separate list of cities in Imperial Valley, if only to see that the list is the same. Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One place being in Imperial County but not in Imperial Valley is not reason for the cat. We do not even sub-categorize the places in Los Angeles county, when there are way more of them and multiple valleys to subcategorize them in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 28 June 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:Cities in San Diego–Imperial, California[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary duplication of the existing categories "Cities in San Diego County, California" and "Cities in Imperial County, California". In fact those two subcategories are the only content to this category. All cities are in either one county or the other, there are no cities in both! MelanieN (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a matter of opinion, where this is being used, I'd rather see two separate entries, "Cities in San Diego County, California" and "Cities in Imperial County, California". However, it probably should be kept until it is an orphan, as a straight-out delete is wrong for the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 13:48, 11 June 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. This category is an unnecessary duplication of the existing categories "San Diego County, California" and "Imperial County, California". There are virtually no articles about the combination of the two counties; they pretty much all involve either one county or the other; so there is no need for this category. MelanieN (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is in use at Southern Border region, but also water districts are reasonably in this bi-county category as these counties share water from the Colorado River. As the old article at San Diego-Imperial, California available in the edit history showed, there are other commonalities. Any unnecessary duplication can be removed by editing. Unscintillating (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is currently just that one article covering this subject - Southern Border region. As far as I can tell there are no bi-county water districts, and no other subjects or pages relating to "San Diego-Imperial". Aside from the one article, and a couple of sub-categories which are up for possible deletion here, everything else in this category properly belongs in either Category:San Diego County, California or Category:Imperial County, California --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search ["San Diego" "Colorado River" water Imperial] gives an idea of the interest of these two counties in Colorado River water. This npr article states, with dateline December 15, 2003, "After eight years of negotiation, a portion of the Colorado River that used to flow into the farms of California's Imperial Valley is now finding its way to San Diego." There is nothing that requires a water district to be a bi-county water district. This ref states that the IID service area includes parts of San Diego county. Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they share a common source of water (along with all of southern California). They also share highways and air traffic control and the same time zone. There are even overlapping congressional districts (as there are with other adjacent counties). But there are no Wikipedia articles about the links between these two counties on those subjects. In order to have a category, there have to be sufficient articles to make the category useful. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a dual-county category that just does not have reason to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Just" is not a really a reason in and of itself. Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 28 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are Terran bacteria. American is a citizenship issue, "Martian" is not a citizenship descriptor. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:23, 14 June 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:People from San Diego–Imperial, California[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is an unnecessary duplication of two existing categories, "People from San Diego County, California" and "People from Imperial County, California". In fact those two (sub)categories are the only content in this category. Everybody is from one county or the other, nobody is from "San Diego-Imperial", so there is no purpose for this category. MelanieN (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete San Diego-Imperial is not a place with people in the sense that someone would say, "I live in 'San Diego County-Imperial County, California' ". Unscintillating (talk) 11:38, 11 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:07, 21 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but I have corrected an obvious typo ("langauge") in the disambiguator. HansAdler 17:05, 19 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; not inherently pleasing, but seems necessary. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:11, 13 June 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:Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added another article and 2 files, just to be a pain and so I could say I did the impossible. No opinion on whether the category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was the "theme song" of the movie, not just included in it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category which, despite GOf's best efforts, is unlikely ever to be anything other than a small category. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an example of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 28 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the one redirects to the other and there's diversity amongst the sub-categories. Changing the name serves no purpose and a year from now someone will suggest putting it back the other way. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per style guide. It is only appropriate to change from American to British spelling when the topic is intimately tied to the country in question. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the MOS (WP:MOS:ENGVAR) you will see that WP does not prefer one variant over another. Ephebi (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Categories should follow the parent article in terminology and spelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it, it's not that funny. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Conformance with the spelling of the main article should take precedence over the principle of preserving the original version. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to match article. If there's a problem with the spelling of the main article, then debate it there. Ephebi (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is ridiculous. That British spelling is one of the few, but it keeps hanging on. I say rename the main article "humor" and be done with this one-going issue.Greg Bard (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is no reason here to favor the spelling currently used in the article over the one in the category. This is a pure debate of different spellings. There is no logic behind one spelling over the other. Renaming the category would be showing a favortism towards one way of spelling. In this case it boils down to we have discrepancy, and until we decide standard ways of spelling throughout wikipedia, there is no reason to change this category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 28 June 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) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, there's no reason for the category to not match the article title here. It's a clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and remember that standard article naming conventions also apply to category names. I've nominated the band category for renaming here. Jafeluv (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article naming rules do not apply to category names. Categories need to be more precise so people will not inadvertently link to them. Occuli is right, and we should not rename this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Category names says that standard article naming conventions apply to categories, but it only gives the example of non-capitalisation; it does not say that PRIMARYTOPIC applies to categories, or even that category names should generally match the lead article. Although there is not much at stake here, I'm still inclined to keep the unambiguous version. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:47, 28 June 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:Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These categories are acting as inappropriate disambiguation pages and are violating the guideline which says to avoid categorizing things by shared name. What these categories accomplish is already accomplished by disambiguation pages, such as here, here, here, and here. (Perhaps rather than having the Enterprise ones broken down in this way these could be listified into single DAB pages that list all ships that go by that name?) Note that these were discussed in 2004. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Valiant and Enterprise are missing list articles for the various ships of that name. Nautilus does have such a list though... Ships named Nautilus. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(nods) Listification seems a sensible move. Certainly we don't need the cats, but some form of reference is a good idea. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear-cut overcategorization by shared name. Listify if desired but not as a pre-requisite for deletion. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists, categories...it's like tomAYto, toMAHto. Different ways to arrive at a similarly useful conclusion. The point here is to improve the encyclopedia; having both categories and lists certainly does that. Frank | talk 01:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not tomayto and tomahto at all - more apples and oranges. They achieve different purposes by the amount of information in them. Which makes more sense for ships named Enterprise - to present them alphabetically with no extra information in a category, or to present them in some other order, such as chronologically, with a line or so of info about each in a list? Which makes it clear which articles are missing, a category which presents all currentl;y-existing articles, or a list which also presents red links? Given that having both simply doubles up information, I'd say a list is far and a away the better option. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps I should have said peach and nectarine. Feel free to disregard the analogy...the main point is that there is no reason to need exactly one of the two. Having both does no harm, and, indeed, helps make the encyclopedia a place more people can interact with meaningfully. Frank | talk 02:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, as a list can provide more information, and I see no harm in having an informative list as well as a disambiguation page. As for categories parallel to lists: occasionally these can be useful, e.g. to index by a different part of the article title, but there is a consensus that a shared name does not justify a category. Note that there was no consensus when this was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Ships by name in 2004 (!); and that I have added the head category Category:Ships by name, which would become redundant without these sub-cats. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category for items linked by nothing more than name seems contrary to the purpose of Categories for me. Listing not needed - eg lists of ships called Enterprise (or Enterprize) are already covered by Enterprise_(disambiguation)#Watercraft and the ship index pages HMS Enterprise (20 ships) and USS Enterprise (9 ships and a certain famous spaceship). Valiant listed at HMS ValiantGraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not listify, per se. Ship index pages (an expanded form of DAB pages) exist for this purpose. --J Clear (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change opinion from listify to delete as the ship indexes are indeed adequate already. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are really disambiguation pages masquerading as categories. Things should not be categoriezed based on what their name is, but what they are. These are classic examples of categories that should not be. really no different than Category:People named John Smith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 28 June 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. I think that this category does need to be renamed, since "Shaft" is quite ambiguous, but I'm not too sure what it should be renamed to. The article about the character is John Shaft, so it could be renamed that. But since the character is more commonly recognizable by the name "Shaft", so Category:Shaft (franchise) might be appropriate? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha—that seems to adopt the worst of both worlds! The more-unrecognized "John Shaft" and the necessary parenthetical ... I think one or the other would be enough. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:43, 10 June 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 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:BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role 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:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename; short, clear and consistent. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:57, 13 June 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.
