The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a computing-specific category; it's not about caches in general. Compared to "caches", "caching" seems like a better title for the topic (but I think "caches" would be an improvement too, and valid under speedy criterion C2A). See separate move request for Cache. Pnm (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom for immediate clarity upon sight of the category name and because this is what the category contains. Hmains (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- There is a current RM on the main article. Cache (disambiguation) does not to my mind explain the term properly. This is a word of French origin referring to a place where something is hidden. The place for the primary discussion is at RM. When that is determined, the outcome here will be obvious. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Peterkingiron. The current naming precedence is dubious in my opinion but in any case we need the main article naming to settle down before we address the category. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OVERCAT, category that unlikely to be further and one of the articles is of dubious notability Secretaccount 19:59, 28 January 2012 (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:Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2012 (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:Music videos directed by Giorgos Lanthimos[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category only houses one article. Can't seem to find any other articles to put there. QuasyBoy 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't create categories in which the subject filmed just one notable event, or in this case a music video. It's WP:OVERCATSecretaccount 00:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure, there are other director cats but I have to wonder how notable it is if he has only directed one. No shortage of other Song cats for article. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by the same editor who gave us the Category:Shopping areas in Canada category tree, nominated previously. This has been created both as a parent and subcategory to that tree. I don't see an established "Shopping in foo-country" structure, and it appears to duplicate the well-established Category:Retailing by country tree. Yes, one does find several unrelated "shopping in foo" categories but not enough for us to establish a tree in Canada, I believe, and especially because, once again, this has all been introduced to categorize a single shopping mall in Moncton. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should the last one be Category:Shopping areas in New Brunswick by cityorCategory:Shopping areas by city in New Brunswick? More generally, I'm of the opinion that we could do away with the handful of shopping areas categories. There is no established scheme for them, they significantly overlap with the shopping malls category tree, and they seem to serve no useful purpose at this time. Currently we have the chain "Shopping areas in Canada → ...Canada by province → ...New Brunswick → ...New Brunswick by city → ...Greater Moncton → ...Moncton", and it is being used to categorize one article which happens to be in a 'Shopping malls' category. I've no objection to renaming now, but I think this should go to CFD sooner or later for deletion. -- Black Falcon(talk)04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Black Falcon, ya beat me to it. Yes, this whole scheme is based on his stub Shopping area, and exists, incredibly, to funnel readers to a single power centre in Moncton. GoF has already issued User:Genehogan (who still edits undet this name, despite a formal request to change it) a warning about this sort of thing. Let's deal with it all at CfD, I suggest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unless someone can show that Category:Retailing in Canada does not meet the same requirements. Certainly no obvious need for sub-national cats. Oculi (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that within the Retailing tree there is Category:Retail buildings, which doesn't have a Canadian category yet. Such a cat could group power centres, malls and any other types of shopping buildings that may exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Category:Shops. Seems to be a lot of redundancy even without the efforts of the Moncton editor. Oculi (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, although those seem to be for individual shops, rather than agglomerations (?) into malls, power centres and what have you. (Also, I've got to be careful I don't WP:BITE this guy away; he's made a bit of a mess of some things, including his own user ID, but he is Go-To Guy for Moncton, seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oculi. Steam5 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete I agree with Shawn and Oculi. Pichpich (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is not enough content about this airport to merit an eponymous category. The category contains only the main article and two files, both of which are used in and, therefore, easily accessible from the main article. If there is no consensus to delete, then rename to Category:International Airport Irkutsk as suggested in the original WP:CFD/S nomination. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:51, 28 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The creator states in his unreferenced WP:OR stub Shopping area that such areas are "Not to be confused with Shopping Mall (Connected Customer entrance) or Pedestrian mall," then seeks to categorize them all under his new structure. This entire category scheme seems to have been created to funnel us to a single article, Trinity Power Centre, which is a power centre in Moncton, and is categorized as such. (Note that the editor has asked to change his user name, but seems to again be editing under the old one. He's still newish, and admirably eager to write about Moncton, but I'm beginning to think there are some serious WP:COMPETENCE issues.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should the last one be Category:Shopping areas in New Brunswick by city orCategory:Shopping areas by city in New Brunswick? More generally, I'm of the opinion that we could do away with the handful of shopping areas categories. There is no established scheme for them, they significantly overlap with the shopping malls category tree, and they seem to serve no useful purpose at this time. Currently we have the chain "Shopping areas in Canada → ...Canada by province → ...New Brunswick → ...New Brunswick by city → ...Greater Moncton → ...Moncton", and it is being used to categorize one article which happens to be in a 'Shopping malls' category. I've no objection to renaming now, but I think this should go to CFD sooner or later for deletion. -- Black Falcon(talk)04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Black Falcon, ya beat me to it. Yes, this whole scheme is based on his stub Shopping area, and exists, incredibly, to funnel readers to a single power centre in Moncton. GoF has already issued User:Genehogan (who still edits undet this name, despite a formal request to change it) a warning about this sort of thing. Let's deal with it all at CfD, I suggest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I raised similar concerns at WP:CFD/S just minutes ago. One issue is that, despite any nuanced differences in definition, 'Shopping areas' and 'Shopping malls' categories would be heavily overlap. Another consideration is the broad meaning of the phrase "shopping area" – logically, it should refer to any area in which shopping is a key or primary activity, but that would extend the scope of the categories to articles about business districts, for example. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He does state at Shopping area (unreferenced) that "Shopping areas are sometimes called Retail Areas, or Retail park or Power center." So this might well end up a redirect, if he cannot provide any references. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Black Falcon. Steam5 (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll create it soon if no one else does. (I just did as "centers" and am speedily deleting it) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(comment also posted above↑) I should point out that within the Retailing tree there is Category:Retail buildings, which doesn't have a Canadian category yet. Such a cat could group power centres, malls and any other types of shopping buildings that may exist.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Black Falcon. Pichpich (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2012 (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:Annual events in Sackville, New Brunswick[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by the same editor, who has already been warned that he's making a bit of a mess of the New Brunswick categories, I believe these two categories fall under WP:SMALLCAT. The structure seems to have beem created for a single article Sappyfest. The population of Sackville, New Brunswick is just 5400 (though it is home to a university). Tantramar Region is just a redirect, with no main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. These are unlikely to grow and they probably make articles harder to find since they're isolated in these over-specific categories. Pichpich (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Steam5 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2012 (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. Not clear why this is a different category from "puzzles", which already exists. Richfife (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename C2C to Category:Solitaire games (per Category:Solitaire tabletop games) andKeep. I populated the category with parents and subcategories. Most puzzles are one-player, but single-player games need not be puzzle games. Quiddler and Ambush! are not puzzles, and solitaire card games for the most part are not puzzles either. – Pnm (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure the current name is ideal but it's pretty obvious that single-player games and puzzles are different things. For instance, solitaire card games are not usually referred to as puzzles. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In UK "Solitaire" means the game described in peg solitaire. Singleplayer card games are called "patience". "Delete" is certainly the wrong solution; if we are not to keep it, we should merge it, but neither of the things mentioend is (to my mind) a "puzzle". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not all single-player games are "solitaire" in even the US meaning of it (video games, pinball), etc. where single players try to beat high scores or free plays, etc. are all single-player games. Carlossuarez46 (talk) Nor are they puzzles in any normal sense of the term. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2012 (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:American Civil War monuments, memorials, and cemeteries in Pennsylvania[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:Merge as proposed or to the new name if the proposed rename below is successful. Again I don't agree with TfT on the need to split out states from lightly populated parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Steam5 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (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:American Civil War monuments, memorials, and cemeteries[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:RenameSplitting. To match the main parent. I'm also not sure that combining memorials and cemeteries is the best choice, so if consensus is to split these, I would not oppose and would be willing to include the parent in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will modify nomination and add some others. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You haven't explained the direction this is going in but potentially this has a broad impact. Separating out into different categories will soon result in artificial groupings. E.g. Antietam National Battlefield, like many such entries, refers to memorials and a cemetery. Before embarking on a massive change I request that you test these changes out with the appropriate project editors (Military, history, Death) who might know something about the subject in question. Ephebi (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Direction? As I said to match the main parents. Per WP:SUBCAT, most of the included articles should belong in all of the parent categories. So articles about cemeteries should not be in the monuments category. The same is true for the other direction. This will just require the articles themselves to be listed in the correct category trees. We also tend to avoid categories for multiple types of things. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support creating cemeteries and monuments categories as seperate categories. If something is both it can go in both categories, but many cemeteries are clearly not monuments, and many monuments are clearly not cemeteries. Also in some cases the two may be at essentially the same place but notable enough to each warrent a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2012 (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.
