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. "Convergence" is ambiguous. We need some sort of disambiguation in this case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:19, 16 November 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 "in PLACE" format. Any other specific changes that are desired should be followed up with a specific nomination (eg, the SRM one probably needs at least the word "the" inserted, but User:Hugo999's suggestion could also be considered). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More "Music in" categories like the ones below, except these are in the middle ground between country and city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see below; prefer "in" Hugo999 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No strong feelings: I agree that standardising on one or the other would be good. However there is a conceptual distinction between the two, albeit one that may have little practical impact. Imagine a [notable] musical institution in County Kildare devoted to the study and performance of Sardinian music. That would be most naturally categorised under both Category:Music of Sardinia (still better Category:Sardinian music) and Category:Music in County Kildare. I created, in fact, the in Sardinia category and I think that—in so far as I gave it any significant thought—my rational was that a concert hall in Cagliari where little if any music of Sardinia was performed ought to be included in the category. However, logical as it might be, I am not about to suggest that all these places should have separate in and of categories. Perhaps it might be a good idea to add a rubric to all of these categories such as ‘This category contains both articles about Northern Irish music and about music more generally in Northern Ireland’. Well, it would need to be phrased much better…. Ian Spackman (talk) 23:24, 16 November 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 to "music in CITY" format. (The only one I'm changing the CITY name of is "Hull" is being changed to "Kingston upon Hull". Any other changes can be followed up with a more specific nomination.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In Category:Music by city and related categories, we have 25 "Music of (city)"s, 15 "Music in (city)"s, and 34 "Music from (city)"s, so there's no clear answer to what format we should use. I like "Music of" best, notably because of categories like Category:Music of United States subdivisions. Update: I've adjusted the nomination to match some English city category formats, which don't use the country name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment suggest that the Hull category be renamed Kingston upon Hull to match the parent article, if it is changed. Keith D (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems smart to me. I've noted the option above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very slightly prefer in. Where cities are concerned, I find this the most natural form: The Stables should certainly appear in Category:Music in Milton Keynes, but probably not in Category:Music of Milton Keynes. And the latter category might prove harder to populate significantly than one might wish. My least favourite option, for what it is worth, is from. But whatever, yes let’s standardize. Ian Spackman (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you put it that way, I'm leaning more toward "of." A more restrictive category is good. Let's only categorize music for which a defining characteristic is its location.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By now I've not a definitive idea about a choose between "in", "of" or "from". Anyway, as creator of 2 categories of Music in (related to Vienna and Stockholm), I left a comment. As said by Ian Spackman above, whatever is the decision, let's standardize. Greets. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would prefer "in", in accordance with Ian Spackman's remarks, but the most important thing is that a standard is chosen, whatever it may be. Fernbom2 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also prefer "in" so scope includes all music/musicians in country/city etc (eg a jazz group in Cologne or a baroque group in Houston) without implying that the music/musicians originated there as "from" or "of" suggests Hugo999 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "in" - I'm glad to see that we appear to be converging on "in" as the most natural formulation for these categories. I think we would have a pretty hard time defining what would be covered by "of". If these subcats are renamed, we should follow up by renaming the US subcats as well. Cgingold (talk) 08:20, 2 December 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to suit convention (not that I agree with that current convention). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Categories by country" is a natural parent. And "country" is highly ambiguous if you use it as an adjective. This isn't a collection of country music portals or rural portals. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a well-defined category: "chapel" could be a separate building, or it could be part of a church (e.g. several of the burials in Washington National Cathedral are in side chapels, with only one in the main church). Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, chapels are not usually churches; they are often attached to generally secular structures (airports, prisons, universities, etc.), and churches clearly denote Christian houses of worship and at least as most of the chapels attached to secular structures in the US (having no state religion) are not exclusively used by Christians. And doesn't "chapel" mean Christian houses of worship which are neither Anglican nor Catholic in British English? Not sure what concept of chapel is being used. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the list of inclusions, they seem to have been selected simply on the basis of the word "chapel" in the name of the structure. One is a Methodist church, others are family or school chapels; one appears to be a misidentified parish church. Mangoe (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The category creator is User:EstherLois, a sockpuppet of Pastorwayne. That alone is a reasonably reliable indicator that the category may be problematic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To say "chapels are not usually churches" is not strictly true. Chapels are frequently part of larger churches (most Anglican and Catholic churches of any size have at least one chapel within them). They can be attached to secular institutions. They can be funeral chapels in cemeteries or crematoria. Or it can just be a generic name for a small church. While "chapel" (as in "he's chapel") is commonly used to refer to someone who is non-conformist (usually Methodist) in the UK, most larger non-conformist places of worship are actually called churches. So, basically, chapel is generally used simply to refer to a small church or a separate area within a larger church and making a distinction in the category is not particularly useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. At the very least, there's quite a bit of overlap here, and the difference largely seems to be one of what word is chosen. I think Necrothesp's comment is largely on target. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (but needs some clean up) -- The Warwick and (probably Warsaw) categories ought to be "in" not "at". In the Warwick case, the chapel is a structure within the church, and it should thus be a subcategory of one for the church. Having said that the distinction between chapel and church is probably too fine to require separate categories. On the other hand many municpal cemeteries have a funeral chapel in which a religious or non-religious service can be conducted. These are not consecrated buildings and are certainly NOT churches. However, I doubt this is a problem since the appropriate category would be for the cemetery there the body is buried, not the place where a funeral service takes place. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 26 November 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; sole article was deleted and category is now empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:30, 20 November 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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I checked all the portals in this category, and nowhere in any of their talk pages does it say what needs attention. This is merely a drive-by categorization that doesn't aid in anything. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because a category is misused doesn't mean it should be deleted. - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if I remove all the articles misusing it, then it'll be an empty category. Kinda counterintuitive, don't you think? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how then will you find the portals you want to delete for being in need of attention, TPH? ;-) BencherliteTalk 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will be empty - until more portals requiring attention are found. This is one of those categories that needs the "do not delete even if empty" tag. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguably too vague to be useful. I agree with TPH that this is the kind of category where it really needs to be specified what exactly needs attention (say with a template or more specific category). Saying a Portal 'needs attention' is no more helpful than saying an article 'needs attention'; it could reasonably be said of every single one we've got. Compare this category to Category:Articles needing attention, which is nothing but a holding category for more specific subcategories, and it becomes clear how inadequate it is. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As the creator of the category, which I have long since forgotten about, I think that what this page really needs is a dedicated maintainer (no thank you). It's possible that the quality of portals has improved over the last few years, but it's nice to know which ones haven't been fully built, or are aging badly, or various other specific problems a maintainer could diagnose and put into subcategories. The category has potential; it's just not living up to it. HereToHelp(talk to me) 05:47, 4 December 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:Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category was recently created by the same editor who brought us Category:International airports in India. While this does fall into a series, I suspect that the categories named after is not a series that every airport needs to be in. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature. Eventually I am sure BOM will merit its own category, but as of yet there is only the titular article and one about a ground operator, which I would remove.- choster (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have removed TajAir from the category, since it's not really applicable. I don't think having an "exclusive entrance" at an airport justifies categorizing the airline article in a category about the airport. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:06, 16 November 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 move - noncontroversial C2C. The BushrangerOne ping only 22:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge I think the intended scope is the same. Even if a subtle difference was intended, the nuance wouldn't be significant enough to warrant two separate categories and the main result would be confusion. Pichpich (talk) 17:51, 16 November 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 (category has remained empty).Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge As far as I can tell, the point of this category is to isolate articles that shouldn't really exist according to WP:FILMPROJECT. In that case, this should be viewed as a WikiProject-related maintenance category and it should contain talk pages rather than articles. If it's used to categorize articles then note that Category:Upcoming films is open to films that are "factually planned to be filmed/released in the near future". Its scope is therefore wide enough to include the two films currently in Category:Film projects. Pichpich (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. The purpose of the category was to allow oversight of which articles had used the "WP:Film project" rationale (where this category is referenced) , when otherwise under WP:NFF they would be deleted. As long as there are any films that do this (usually not a large number at any time, as the status is usually temporary) so should the category. And yes, its should be applied to talk pages rather than articles, as mentioned in the discussion when the category was created, here, so I've adjusted the two articles currently in the category. Barsoomian (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But clearly that's not how the category is being used. Unless it has a name that clearly marks it as what you intend it to be, I think this problem will continue. Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As WP:FILMPROJECT is an essay, and reflects a single point of view, should we have categories based on this? WP:NFF is an established guideline. As the only entry, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (which I've now removed) is a failed film, notable because of its failure and therefore in keeping with WP:NFF (in the same way that The Other Side of the Wind is), then it shouldn't even be here. Therefore, we have an empty category. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 1 December 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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorize with the new name. One should store theory, the other should store classes/examples of dynamical systems. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Adding 'theory' does nothing except make for more typing as almost all mathematical content is theory; that that isn't (history, biography) is clear from the article name. It's not clear what the rationale for the name change is, other than the proposer's preference, but "I like it better" is not a valid reason for change.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:53, 21 November 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 parent for Railway infrastructure in London is Category:Rail infrastructure in the United Kingdom and the parent of that also uses the same convention, so Rail infrastructure in London should be the category, rather than "Rail transport infrastructure...". Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for stations, but Oppose for infrastructure, where the only offending category is for the underground, and we all know it is an underground railway. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stations, Rename infrastructure to Category:Rail infrastructure in London as per above. The Underground and DLR are still railways. The DLR even has the word in its title. The fact that "railway" is not often used in relation to the London Underground doesn't make it any less of one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 5 December 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate cats; target has the preferred and predominate "X of Y" name. The BushrangerOne ping only 07:50, 16 November 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; the target has the "X of Y" format that is preferred and overwhelmingly used by subcats of subcats of Category:Ships by navyThe BushrangerOne ping only 07:34, 16 November 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:Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - Delete:WP:OC - frigates and corvettes aren't usually classed as "patrol vessels" (especially the former), and the only two subcats here are already also categorised under the parent cat Category:Ships of the Myanmar Navy. The BushrangerOne ping only 07:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, after realsing some templates were populating these, the category is now empty after modifying the templates, so U1 applies. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn after further tweaking of templates - it now has valid contents. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:41, 16 November 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. The word "Opera" (capital "O") is not exactly unambiguous, but it certainly doesn't mean "opera" in a context like this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in this context, the meaning of the category is clear - if it was enjoy Opera there would be ambiguity. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does this aid collaboration? Are people more likely to work on an article based on the web browser they use? Lugnuts (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf gave some examples - "someone can test whether or not something displays properly or discuss add-ons that are useful for editing and collaboration". And if this isn't convincing, then this category should be discussed together with most (if not all) of its sibling categories. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I think the average user would head to the Village Pump with disaply issues, rather than navigate through that category. Infact, they'd probably be more aware of the former over the latter. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But then the users who help at VP may try and get help from users who specifically use Opera (or IE or Firefox) if they believe that the browser may be part of the issue. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response As Od pointed out before and I said earlier, this might be useful for a legitimate purpose on a Web-based encyclopedia. I'm entirely in favor of deleting trivial Wikipedia user categories, but if there's any prospect that a scheme could aid in professionalism or collaboration to strengthen the encyclopedia, I'm all for it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with Lugnuts that this category is completely useless. But supposing that we do keep it, there's no possible ambiguity. The capitalization is already a good hint but even without this "Wikipedians who use Opera" is no more ambiguous than "Wikipedians who listen to opera". Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I would agree that this entire tree of categories needs looking at. The arguments that this category is useful for Wikipedia-furthering purposes are pretty weak and extremely limited at best, IMO. In the mean time, while I agree it isn't very ambiguous as named, we generally like to match category names with article name, so I have no problem with the proposed rename. VegaDark (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No reason here why the name in the category can't match the name of the article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a user category. So, it does not need to have the same name as the article. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 6 December 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: Discussion at WP:MOTORSPORTS recently determined "racing driver" to be the preferred disambiguation format; "racecar driver" is primarily American (and somewhat simplistic-sounding), while "racing driver" is universally recognised - and not all the drivers race cars, as well. Subcats of this to be speedied if approved. The BushrangerOne ping only 04:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Racing driver is certainly a more universal term. Readro (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm somewhat torn on the issue as the "racecar driver" naming convention for categories has been around for a very long time. However, that doesn't mean it's right or best. I did support using "racing driver" for disambiguation of driver pages so I should be consistent and support it here as well. -Drdisque (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems to be ambiguous. While it make be acceptable within the motor sports community, I'm concerned that across the rest of the sports community this may not be. Is the driver of a bobsled a racing driver? Is the sulky jockey a racing driver? The current name is clear, precise and unambiguous. Do we have any notable riding mower racers? Do we intend to include Formula 1 drivers in with go cart drivers? I'm just really uneasy about the proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Riding mowers, no - race trucks, however...yes, yes we do. And as noted "racecar driver" is Americentric - the rest of the world doesn't use it, making it not at all clear. (Plus "racecar", especially run together, frankly sounds...childish, to be honest). However, if there is a concern, would Category:Auto racing drivers work? - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. For the record, I don't believe that racecar is a word in US English. It's race car. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even the OED does not have "racecar" (it does have "race car"). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally prefer "racing driver" over "racecar driver"; my main concern is that changing the long-standing naming convention might fall foul of WP:ENGVAR (although I note that some of the subcats already include use "racing driver", so the existing category tree is not entirely consistent anyway). "Auto racing driver" is my least preferred of the three options. DH85868993 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Since the proposal includes speedying all the relevant subcats, should those subcats also be tagged, to bring this discussion to the attention of editors who might be watching one of the subcats but not watching Category:Racecar drivers? Having said that, my guess is that anyone who cares would be watching WP:MOTOR, and hence already be aware of the discussion. Please note that I'm not trying to make extra work for anyone; I'm just trying to avoid a situation where the speedying gets bounced for some reason, and we have to go through the discussion all over again for the subcats. DH85868993 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Racing driver" is far more generic. "Racecar" sounds very odd to non-American ears (and since there is no article with that title, changing the category does not really fall foul of WP:ENGVAR: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms"). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am comfortable including lawn mower racing drivers in this group along with kart participants, powerboat racing, drag racers, etc. The key is it has to be powered by an engine as Vegaswikian points out. I prefer "Auto racing drivers" or "Motorsport racing drivers" but all are better than "racecar drivers" since the current doesn't make sense to people outside the United States (and they all make sense to people in the US). However, some care is required since motorcycle drivers like to be called "riders" and I don't know about karting participants. Royalbroil 13:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the greatest choice and it is ambiguous. Motors have drivers? Well actually, they do. Motors is slang for police motorcycles or their riders. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, "motor" is slang for a car, never a motorcycle and certainly not its rider! Two countries divided and all that... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a problem with calling the category "Racing drivers". Until other sports also adopt the term, it is unambiguous. Readro (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I doubt there are many notable truck racing drivers, and if there are they can have a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 26 November 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. I tried to come up with a clear definition to justify the keeping of the category, and couldn't do it either. I'm going to delete this with no prejudice against a new attempt with a new name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. To quote Family business, A family business is a business in which one or more members of one or more families have a significant ownership interest and significant commitments toward the business’ overall well-being. Well the bottom line is that this is totally subjective and not appropriate for deciding on what goes into the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator -Drdisque (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been lengthy features on Family-run businesses in serious newspapers such as the FT. There are societies and associations for such, so there should be no trouble in identifying these businesses through RS. Ephebi (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Family run is likely different then Family. And do we have a concise object definition for either? If not, then it needs to be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The definition can't be nailed down in a way that would make these reliably categorizable. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "family-owned" or "family-controlled" or "family-run". I think the problem (if there is one) is with the breadth of the definition quoted, which is too embracing. It should be possible to provide a tighter definition, with some objective criteria. please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs a clear definition. I would suggest something like 'businesses where two or more members of the same family have taken a major role in running the business'. That would rule out any businesses which are owned by a family without being run by them, but I doubt there are actually very many of those. Robofish (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this nomination points out the lack of an objective criteria, I don't see any clear definitions proposed. So one could assume that this is the problem and since there is no workable definition, why keep it? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed definition by Robofish has a "major" problem, in that it uses the standard of persons who have taken "a major role in running the business". What is a "major role"? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the basic definition is too broad to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AS I said before: Keep -- I suggest the definition as a "business owned where two or more members of the same family own the business or at least 75% of the shares in it". Robofish's definition is too vague. I suggest 75%, becasue in UK that is the number of shareholders' votes needed to change the Articles of Association (constitution) of the a company, but I do not have strong views on the figure. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 17 December 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:Accommodation for sports competitions[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:Rename. Accommodations really needs the plural form here. Without it, it does not read right. This category is a collection of buildings and is not a singular accommodation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 16 November 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.
