Category:Documentaries about coal in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. I'd call the upmerge aspect of this a "no consensus," though a nomination of all the "coal in the United States" categories might produce a different result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I'd be tempted to upmerge it into Documentary films about environmental issues, as it's a triple intersect right now (documentaries, coal, US) and I can't see there being the need to add a level of coal documentaries in x country. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creators comments As the person who made these categories, I was trying to specify Category:Coal in the United States, thinking that a list of books and films on the subject would be helpful to a reader. The rename seems too minor to discuss. As for upmerge, I fail to understand objectively what the intended goal is. I think some of the comments allude to category spam, which makes sense, but to me both of the categories under discussion would be the most "primary" identifying category for the articles in it. Category:Documentaries about coal seems like the best alternative. -Theanphibian(talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with the above suggestion, especially since it's since come to light that we do have at least one non-film documentary on the subject. To date we have Category:Peak oil films, too, most of which are documentary films, so we could be looking at the genesis of a documentary branch for fossil fuel industries. When you toss in a film like Gasland, there's a good basis there, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, so as to not dominate the discussion here, I should also add that we do have indef banned user Nopetro's underpopulated Category:Environmental issues with coal. Those opposed to a documentary category on this one fuel source might also consider whether Noptero's category could be used for films, books and the like exploring such issues... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is part of a coherent system of categories as suggested then I support the proposed rename. Cjc13 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Environmental issues with coal should be parallel with Category:Environmental issues with energy, which is a series I've worked on before. There is good coherency there, but the issue that matters is whether or not the articles about environmental issues specific to coal are big enough for its own category or small enough that they should just be dumped in the main cat, and the current situation favors the latter. Adding empty branches that do nothing but lead to the next branch doesn't make sense, although it's empirically serving the role of logical categorization, that doesn't make it useful. It's like Category:Environmental issues with fossil fuels, which then leads to the cats on coal and petroleum. I mean, come on guys. Do you really need to establish (fossil fuels)\coal instead of just coal? Sigh. -Theanphibian(talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. This is a small cat with three entries. It is an example of overcategorization and the creation of specific and multiple intersects. It is too specialized to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 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 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:American architects of Hungarian descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge the nominated category. The other categories listed here should probably be nominated individually. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but could you make separate nominations? Last time the group proposal failed as it lead to abstract discussions, distracting from the merit of each category on its own. The conclusion seemed to be that case by case discussions are necessary. I would like this proposal to remain about the category "American architects of Hungarian descent" only. --Elekhh (talk) 21:07, 22 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: There are only thee pages in this category, one added by me today. The two notions are practically synonymous, so it's not beneficial to have this small category. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion, because I don't like to waste my time opposing someone else's wish (to merge). But for other participants of this discussion, I suggest to read the article constraint programming and then decide for yourself whether these two notions are similar enough. (As for me, "contraint programming" is more baout the flavor of programming paradigms, whereas "constarint satisfaction" is merely the kind of problems.)--Imz (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of constraint programming is misleading. It says "The constraints used in constraint programming are of various kinds: those used in constraint satisfaction problems (e.g. "A or B is true"), those solved by the simplex algorithm (e.g. "x ≤ 5"), and others." But "x ≤ 5" is also a relation, and constraint satisfaction problems (CSP) are a superset of linear programming problems. Many if not all constraint programming languages were developed to easily frame and solve CSPs. This includes the best known languages ILOG Solver, ECLiPSe, etc. See for instance the blurb about the 2011 ECLiPSe book "The book is an introductory and down-to-earth presentation of Constraint Logic Programming (CLP), an exciting software paradigm, more and more popular for solving combinatorial as well as continuous constraint satisfaction problems and constraint optimization problems." FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Constraint programming" appears to be the more general domain name outside Wikipedia see handbook for example, so I've changed the order of the proposal: there should be only one category, but its name should be "constraint programming". Programming is used deliberately ambiguously here because it is at the confluence of mathematical programming and computer programming in this field. The first page of the handbook actually makes this very point [1]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:00, 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.
The result of the discussion was:Merge to both parents. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If merged the article will still be within that structure, just not as an isolated, unexpandable single-entry category. Harley Hudson (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2011 (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) 16:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination to merge. Better to had two categories for the article, and to reduce the number of single member categories. Single member categories are not helpful in using categories to aid navigation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, merge then (even though the nominator has since been blocked). This would in any case be without prejudice to re-creating the category if more articles come along later. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have severe doubts there are many notable unfinished television episodes. This is roughly equivalent to something like Category:Unfinished skits. Television episodes barely count as full works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 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 both. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I question the logic of having a category for television season finales but regardless of the merit of that category there is no justification for a sub-category for Star Trek. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest re-listing along with the head category. I also question the logic for season finales. However, the various Star Trek series had about 30 seasons, so it's a big enough population to keep this as a sub-category, if the parent remains. - Fayenatic(talk) 09:10, 7 June 2011 (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) 16:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both because being at the end of a season is insufficiently notable. I have added a CFD notice on the head category page. - Fayenatic(talk) 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with nominator. These episode are already trivially easy to locate for someone interested in finding what I think is a trivial intersection. See for example List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, where the reader can easily read off the season finales. I don't know that there is anything particularly special about the season finales. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: so why keep the head category for season finales at all? - Fayenatic(talk) 17:57, 20 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.
OK, I changed it in the proposal. MarkussepTalk 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't the ones that refer to "XXXX peripheral unit" need the word "the", as before? "Populated places in the Kozani peripheral unit" sounds more natural in English. Either that or it needs to be "Populated places in Kozani (peripheral unit)" to match the way the articles are named. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me "Populated places in Kozani peripheral unit" sounds OK as well (after all, it's a category name, not a sentence), but I don't mind adding "the" or brackets. For consistency with the articles, I'd pick brackets then. MarkussepTalk 08:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if everyone agrees I'll change the proposal to "Populated places in Kozani (peripheral unit)", and "Populated places in X" for the unambiguous ones. MarkussepTalk 17:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like seeing parentheses in categories, but it makes sense to follow the main articles, so yes. Constantine ✍ 13:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and added another category. MarkussepTalk 09:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'Peripheral Unit' is a very clumsy-sounding translation. I note that in the discussion they were referred to as 'Periphery'. Can you use that form instead? e.g. Category:Populated places in Florina PeripheryEphebi (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, peripheries are a different level of administrative unit in Greece, e.g. Attica, West Macedonia. Peripheral units are part of peripheries. MarkussepTalk 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Oppose My understanding of the administrative changes in Greece is that the only administrative levels that make sense are municipalities (demes) and peripheries. I therefore think that these categories should be replaced by something like Category:Populated places in PERIPHERY or Category:Populated places in MUNICIPALITY, or a combination of both. See for instance how it looks like on the bulgarian Wikipedia at Category:Villages of Greece and its subcats such as Populated places in Central Greece or Populated places in Western Macedonia, which are sorted by municipality (дем/δήμος). (You might want Google translate to help you.) I'd say put all the links in one big cat for the periphery, or make subcats for the Kallicratis municipality, the peripheral unit does not deserve such treatment. There may be exceptions for islands (e.g. Corfu - now a municipality in its own right - or Euboea) or somewhat famous cultural regions (e.g. Achaea or Boeotia). Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The powers of the peripheral units are less than those of the old prefectures, but they're still administrative divisions, with their own representatives (the antiperifereiarches). IMO it makes sense to keep categories on this level. MarkussepTalk 08:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Markus says, the former prefectures / peripheral units are still extant as administrative divisions. Plus, due to the fact that prefectures had existed for more than 150 year, they are de facto the division that Greeks themselves still commonly use. For instance, villages with the same name will still be disambiguated by prefecture, not periphery. Constantine ✍ 13:04, 18 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:Pre-modern Catholic sex abuse cases[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:Delete. Seems to have been created mainly for this article the content of which has now been deleted. Only one of the two articles currently in it is directly relevant to the subject, and even then the name "cases" is inappropriate. The creator of the category has been blocked. Fayenatic(talk) 08:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this appears to be a bit forced. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:40, 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.
Category:Electric Locomotives of South Africa[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.
Speedy rename per nom. No reason to hang around here, as this meets speedy renaming criteria C2A and/or C2C. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, not contentious. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be doing it gradually since I'm in the process of doing a complete revision of the SA sparkies anyway.André Kritzinger (talk) 18:57, 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.
