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 Urban Works Entertainment is a distributor, not a producer. Films are not categorized by distribution companies, nor would it be reasonable to do so since the distributor has little to no impact on the film. On top of that, Urban Works Entertainment is not a major player in film distribution and currently doesn't have an article on the wiki. Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 28 March 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.
Support to match parent article.--Lenticel(talk) 00:44, 30 March 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:Executive branch of the German Government[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 to Category:Federal Government of Germany. While the term "executive branch" seems not to apply here, it would be a mistake to just dump this into Category:Government of Germany. So for now I'm renaming it to account for the discrepancy, but keep the contents separate. This can be nominated again to a different name if desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the precedent of the Irish case – Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 11 # 1.3 Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland. The ratio decidendi as presented are, mutatis mutandis, offered here also: "The terminology of "executive branch" is an Americanism not used in Germany. This is not complicated. Under the German constitution, the Bundestag and the judiciary are not part of the government. The United States constitution views them as difft branches of govt, but that is not the terminology adopted by the German constitution. In Germany, the "executive branch" is the only thing called "Government of Germany". Those who choose to view Germany through the doctrine of the tripartite separation of powers may like to apply that label, but it is not the Germany terminology ... and its application to Ireland also ignores the fact that the Bundestag elects the members of the Government from its own ranks, so the US-style separation does not exist. No need to create a separate category using American terminology. The German Government is the German Government. The UK doesn't need a separate cat for a fictitious "Executive Branch" (see Category:Government of the United Kingdom) so I fail to see why Germany does. Executive power of the state is exercised by the government but the use of the term "Executive branch" is unknown in Germany.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The present name appears to be a confusing and unnecessary artifice. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.But, Comment [Changed in the light of comment from BrownHairedGirl]. Since many readers are from the United States, the text for the category should explain the possible difference in the meaning of the word "government" in presidential and parliamentary democracies. --Boson (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The nomination sounds correct in principle, but a) there are no references to any reliable sources to allow us to check the terminology, and b) the nom does not take account of the federal structure of Germany, which has powerful state governments. If the nominator is correct about the terminology, then the current executive branch category should probably be renamed something like Category:Federal Government of Germany or Category:Government of Germany (federal), but I suggest that that we await input from editors more familiar with German politics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the category should include the word "federal", to distinguish from the state governments. The sibling Category: Legislative branch of the Government of Germany also needs looking at (particularly if "Government" is capitalized). --Boson (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (linked in the nom) has a whole section entitled "Executive branch", and states "Especially important is the protection of the division of state powers in the three branches, legislative, executive and judicial" (albeit not amply sourced). (However, de:Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland doesn't seem to use the same terminology.) Occuli (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comments The comments above are noteworthy. However, I should point out that in the Irish precedent, such arguments were pointedly rejected in the following terms: "you should know by now that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the extract you quote from the article Constitution of Ireland is unreferenced. You are entitled to your view of the Constitution, but it is original research." Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Submit a broader nomination to rethink these categories. As well as the confusion expressed above, it's also clear that Category:Government of Germany is using the American approach to the term "government", including the legislative and judicial branches plus the heads of state plus a lot at Länder level there. However I note the official English translation of the Basic Law which consistently uses "government" to refer to the executive ministries at either Federal or Länder level; the Federal branch is explicitly defined in Article 62 as "The Federal Government shall consist of the Federal Chancellor and the Federal Ministers." This seems clear that "government" means the executive branch only and note also that the (non-executive) President does not appear to be part of the government at all. Despite this Category:Executive branch of the German Government includes Presidents. Just to add to all this we've got some of the state categories and articles spread about. Whilst it seems clear to me that "Executive branch of the German Government" is the wrong term to use, I don't think we can clearly set names without clarity as to the contents of these categories. For starters there probably need to be distinct federal and state container categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this compromise pending a fuller review of cats and sub-cats. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:10, 6 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.
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: Although most of the subcategories pertain to states of India, some cover both states and territories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support to make the cat more comprehensive--Lenticel(talk) 01:30, 29 March 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:Upmerge Not that I know much about administrative divisions of Bangladesh but it seems that Fatikchhari Upazila is not even a village! In any case, it seems appropriate to move the sole page in the current category into the unions category. Pichpich (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. The administrative hierachy appears to be Divisions; Districts; Upazilas (equivalent to counties) or Thamas; Unions; Villages. “Village” is the smallest/lowest (from article Villages of Bangladesh). Articles Unions of Bangladesh and Union Councils of Bangladesh have both been deleted, so the overall arrangement is difficult to follow!. But it appears that a Union is the next level up, so Lelang union cannot be part of the Village (?) of Fatikchhari! There is a category for all villages: Category:Villages of Bangladesh with only 10 entries. Hugo999 (talk) 12:17, 29 March 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:Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics[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: It is misleading category. The organizations listed here are not opposed to environment protection, they just adopt a different approach (including free market environmentalism) to the issue. Reference Desker (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep delete argument is not credible; it is simply the argument made by certain of these organizations. They are skeptics and critics of the the environmentalist movement, for which they make well known, and paid for. Hmains (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - We organize things according to how people would reasonably try to find them. Folks looking for organizations of environmentalism skeptics need a place to look. Similarly, folks looking for organizations of environmentalists would not be well-served by having in the mix organizations that deny climate change, critique the value of environmental regulation, etc. It is not Wikipedia's place to try to encourage everyone to expose themselves to different points of view by way of lumping together advocates for different positions in the same category on the basis of their subject interest. Compare, for example, category:pro-choice organizations and category:pro-life organizations. ETA: If groups of environmentalists who favor free-market approaches are improperly listed in with "skeptics and critics" then they should be removed. These should be distinguished, however, from groups that are skeptical of environmental concerns but think that if they exist the market will address them. Those I think are properly listed as "skeptics and critics ... of environmentalism". Hope this is clear. --Lquilter (talk) 17:30, 31 March 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. Note the sole article is already in the parents. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete It doesn't make sense to have a category since there's essentially a single passport for any given country. Pichpich (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge No need for a one page category. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Upmerge single member per Mangoe.--Lenticel(talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom for this particular category Hmains (talk) 02:34, 31 March 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: Redundant at this point in time. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question redundant to what? Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Small (4 articles), and redundant with Category:Silanes. Per Silane, "In general, silanes are any silicon analogues of alkane hydrocarbons. So the basic silane is an analogue of methane, the simplest alkane. The nomenclature parallels that of alkanes." Merge to Category:Silanes, or make a subcategory of Category:Silanes, if the pure hydrides are very special among the dozens of silanes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)..[reply]
Are you saying that Disilyne is not a silane? Is it because it has a triple bond? The other three articles state that they are silanes. If this is a correct fine point, as you say, then I think it better to keep them all as Category:Silicon hydrides. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What they are or aren't is of trivial persuit and besides the moot of this discussion for deletion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Plasmic Physics. He appears to understand this area and removal of the category would appear to leave all of the articles in appropriate categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 8 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.
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 to match Julissa (singer) and avoid potential ambiguity with Julissa who was also a singer (though it's not clear from the article whether she recorded albums or not). Pichpich (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If that's the norm (i.e. Name (singer) albums) in similar cases, then sure. I created the category in the fly and didn't really pay attention to that detail. Thief12 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 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 tree. The wikiproject associated to it was recently deleted and these categories were cleaned out so they are no longer needed. Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 28 March 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 and towns destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami[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.
Question: given that "devastated by" is still somewhat open to interpretation, would "affected by" be a better descriptor? --Kinut/c 03:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Devastated" is broader than "destroyed" but both are equally subjective. "Affected by" is perhaps easier to verify but then it puts on par cities in Japan that were wiped off the map like Minamisanriku, Miyagi and places in Oregon where a boat came off its moorings. This is why I think a list would be better. Pichpich (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. The Category:Destroyed cities tree is intended for places that have been permanently destroyed, which will not be true in every case here. As for renaming, see also discussion on Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake. There is no objective criteria for "Devastated by," and even less of a line so for "affected by"— everywhere from Oregon to Osaka has been affected.- choster (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support I think "affected by" is too general and "destroyed" is too final: clearup work is already starting in many places. Evidence for devastation is easy to come by from news articles and photographs, whilst destruction would logically require you to consider the whole town and not just a substantial part of it. Although devastation is a subjective term I don't think there would be much disagreement since the towns currently in the category are ones where a major part of the town has been visibly laid waste. If you want an objective definition I would suggest "majority of buildings destroyed" (in most cases we are talking about 80-90% destroyed AFAIK). Samatarou (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't 45% of buildings also pretty bad? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the level of devastation was a roughly continuous function of distance to the coast so there has to be some places where destruction is 50%-ish. In any case, where will we find precise data on the percentage? Do we count one-story wood houses on par with 5-story concrete buildings? Shouldn't we consider as "devastated" a city with 30% of buildings down but infrastructures that need to be entirely rebuilt? If you think about it, "devastated" cannot possibly correspond to anything that's both objective and precise. Pichpich (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was a bit rash to suggest an objective definition, I think probably we can rely on common sense since I don't think there is likely to be signnificant disagreement over the question of devastation, most of the towns have already been tagged with the existing category name, it's more a question as to whether this name is over-the-top, since it logically would feed into the "category:destroyed cities" category which seems contentious for most of the places tagged. Samatarou (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is not always common. The purpose of a category is to group pages about related topics, separating them from other pages; the grouping loses its meaning if we cannot clearly state what exactly ties together the pages in the category and what distinguishes them from pages that are not in the category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this is a defining characteristic for many of the towns and cities. A list is also in order, the two are not mutually exclusive. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be the criterion for inclusion in the category—i.e., what is the criterion for "devastated"? Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering any of the criteria for decimation -- destruction of 1/10 population, 1/10 area, 1/10 GDP, 1/10 value. We can probably establish that in this CFD, and post it as a notice on the category page. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting approach, but it still leaves some questions unanswered. For example: Why 10% (it is specific, but arbitrary)? What counts as "destruction": death, injury, displacement, etc. Also, even if we can get it to work in the case of this event, what precedent does that set for other events? For instance, Category:Populated places devastated by World War II would include much of Europe, and the situation is similar for most major natural and man-made disasters. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the standard used by the Roman Army for the punishment known as "decimation", hence the origin of the term "decimation" (a synonym of devastation in some circumstances) in its purest form. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as devasted and replace 'cities and towns' with 'populated places' so that any established area with people can be included, regardless of its city/town status. 'Populated places' is the WP standard inclusion group name for cities, towns, villages, etc. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
don't you mean "change to devastated"? The issue is that the category currently says "destroyed". Having said that, "places" rather than "cities and towns" is fine by me, especially as the terms "city", "town" and "village" don't have quite the same meaning in Japan as other parts of the world (defining regions rather than settlements). Samatarou (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Devastated is not an improvement. Destroyed cities may well rebuild, so 'gone forever' is not an issue either.--Tallard (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how, again, would you reliably distinguish "devastated" from merely "damaged"? What if a certain district were devastated, but the rest of a city merely affected?- choster (talk) 13:44, 4 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category used to contain a dozen or so redirects that all pointed to the same article. Probably worthy of speedy deletion. But I wanted to put it to the community just to establish a consensus for this. A bunch of redirects to the same article probably qualifies as overcategorization, not to mention that there aren't very many fictional months that would meet what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but what happened was that I cleaned up the redirects that all pointed to the same article. I didn't realize it would leave the category empty until I was done, but that only proves that the category was frivilous. Are we really going to create a category that's just a bunch of redirects to the different sections of a single article? Last I checked, that's what a table of contents is for. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you removed Category:Middle-earth redirects because ... ? Are they not middle-earth redirects? The category is certainly not frivolous; eg it is the only relevant hit in this search. Perhaps WP:TOLKIEN might provide some rationale for the category, if asked. Occuli (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a category made entirely of redirects to one article isn't a violation of the overcategorization guideline, then I don't know what is. I'm not sure what asking a WikiProject comprised of fans of that topic would accomplish other than canvassing. We don't need authorities on Middle Earth. We need authorities on the appropriate use of categories. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling an entire WikiProject prone to canvassing and fandom is neither an objective response nor was removing Category:Middle-earth redirects justified; this category contains 1400+ entries and the Category:Redirects by topic scheme is sucessfully being used for various topics of botany, geography, mangas and anime, philosophy, etc., so I'm going restore those redirect categorizations you removed. But back on topic, "Fictional months" seems in fact without much potential. We don't need it. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the project is prone to canvassing. But I am saying that taking a discussion about overcategorization to a particular subject area is canvassing in the sense that it's forum shopping, when we have a perfectly good forum right here. I don't see any reason we should single out this one WikiProject on the existence of this category. I apologize for removing the "redirects by topic" scheme, as it's not something I was familiar with. That's worth restoring. My main concern was about this category. Once again, I wasn't trying to depopulate the category on purpose. I was just trying to remove all the redirects that linked to the same article. I didn't realize until I was done that the entire category was just those redirects. But it confirms my suspicion that the category qualifies as WP:OVERCAT. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 28 March 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.
