Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14[edit]

Category:Lohana people[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) 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by their caste - Lohana is a caste. I've just emptied this category because the five articles within it were all individuals. A recent example of deletion per this rationale is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Category:Rajput people. Sitush (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize by caste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per above. When I created the category I was note aware of this policy that we do not categorize by caste. Jethwarp (talk) 05:13, 21 November 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:Ancient Roman Christianity in Britain[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:Christianity in Roman Britain. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Anything in the Roman province of Brittania is Romano-British. It goes without saying that it is Ancient Roman. Consistent with Category:Romano-British saints and Category:Gallo-Roman saints. Nomination was opposed at speedy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a neologism. See Romano-British culture, Romano-British language and Category:Romano-British objects in the British Museum. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Christianity in Roman Britain. The subject is Christianity, and the location is Roman Britain. So we should make it a clear in cat. We can not say "Roman Catholic Church" because that is an anachronistic application of the term to such an early time period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not anachronistic. That's the point. Catholic church existed at this point in time and these people were Catholic. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is anachronistic. That's the point. The term "Catholic" was not in gereral usage ante-Nicene. There was simply "the Church". Post-Nicene, both western and western traditions of the Church described themselves as catholic. Only post- schism did it come to mean the western tradition alone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Christianity in Roman Britain" as a good alternative if others agree too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- "Romano-British" is the normal way to refer to Britian in the period. However I think that Christianity in Roman Britain is an even better name. "Catholic" may be technically correct, but it is misleading, since there were no denominations as such. It is also misleading as a prelude to Chritianity in sub-Roman Britain, which emerged from the Dark Ages as Celtic Christianity, which had to be reconciled with Rome at the Synod of Whitby. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Christianity in Roman Britain. Clean, concise, clear to non-specialist readers. Dezastru (talk) 23:00, 25 November 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:Immigrants to Quebec[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: Keep - jc37 11:10, 5 December 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:Chinese clay art[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) 21:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Totally pointless small duplication of Category:Chinese pottery. All contents already there or in the porcelain sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 14 November 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:Ancient Roman Christians[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:Christians in the Roman Empire - jc37 11:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Ancient Roman Christians to Category:Ancient Christians
Nominator's rationale As for saints nomination below. Both are identical really. Either name is acceptable as long as 1 disappears. "Ancient Christians" fits into the Category:Christians by periodtree structure a bit better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a by nationality category. From very early days there were Christians beyond the Roman Empire, clearly there were Christians who count as ancient not in the Roman Empire. This category should not be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By nation? Which nation? There were 40 nations in the Empire. Did you mean to re-name to "Christians of the Roman Empire" ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are Roman Catholic Christians. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can not say "Roman Catholic Church" because that is an anachronistic application of the term to such an early time period (per Johnpacklambert above). The term "Catholic" was not in gereral usage ante-Nicene. There was simply "the Church". Post-Nicene, both western and western traditions of the Church described themselves as catholic. Only post- schism did it come to mean the western tradition alone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:51, 17 November 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.

Corsican emigrants to 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: No consensus to merge - jc37 11:20, 5 December 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:Breton emigrants to 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Current category is a case of over-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would suggest giving this some time. While the historical union is correct, Brittany maintained a totally separate legal system from the rest of France, keeping portions of Celtic law, until the French Revolution. That, by the way, occurred after the United States came into existence. They still maintain a separate language.
It might be worth waiting and not rushing to decide until other opinions come in. Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not categorise by what legal system the people came from. We categorize by what country they owed allegiance to, and that would be France. Considering we got rid of Category:Venetian emigrants to the United States and Venice was a fully independent country when the US was founded, which Brittany was not, I don't see how we can keep this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete we need not categorize immigrants on the basis of ethnicity/race; they are changing countries not their ethnicities/races so it is from France to the US and should be merged per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support until there are enough articles to need to split a French category by French province. Alternatively populate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category by its name is limited to a very short period of time. I would be surprised if we have many other articles on people who came from Brittany when it was not an integral part of France to the United States. This should not be used for people who went to the Thirteen Colonies, and even more so should not be used for people who went to New France. We have Category:French emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies for the former, the latter, I am not sure if we need to categorize them as emigrants, since they did not move beyond French control, and if we do categorize them I am not sure what they should be named, maybe Category:French emigrants to New France. I am not sure Category:People of New France is large enough to need such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 19 November 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:Ancient Roman saints[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: No consensus - No prejudice against an immediate renomination. Though it might be worth noting the rest of Category:Saints by nationality. - jc37 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no ontological difference between the two. Both relate to the Roman Empire from around 70AD to 325 AD (Ante-Nicene period). "Ancient Christian saints" is slightly to be preferred because technically some Christian saints were outside the Empire (e.g. Thomas Christians in Persia and India). But either is acceptable as long as 1 of them disappears.
Sorry - got a bit trigger happy and John Pack Lambert got in before I was able to amend it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Our Saint categories assume that all saints are Christians. As far as i can tell we do not use the term for non-Christians. This is a reasonable name, the sister of such categories as Category:American saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are Roman Catholic Christians. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can not say "Roman Catholic Church" because that is an anachronistic application of the term to such an early time period (per Johnpacklambert above). The term "Catholic" was not in gereral usage ante-Nicene. There was simply "the Church". Post-Nicene, both western and western traditions of the Church described themselves as catholic. Only post- schism did it come to mean the western tradition alone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:50, 17 November 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:Real Madrid Juvenil footballers[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: upmerge to Category:Real Madrid C.F. players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at WT:FOOTY and in this recent related CFD, categories for youth footballers are not notable, they should be (and are in 99.9% of cases!) included in the parent category. Proposing a deletion and/or upmerge. GiantSnowman 18:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they should be in the parent category, then what we need here is an upmerge to make sure that no footballer loses his Real Madrid category. Even if there's just a 0.01% chance of that happening, since the situation may change between now and the close of the discussion. BencherliteTalk 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding is that playing in the junior division is not notable participation, thus people should not be categorized by it, thus we should delete the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 17 November 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:Queer comedians[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. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two more in the endless series of splinter categories unnecessarily subdividing the LGBT parent. Identical categories for lesbian and gay comedians were deleted in May and the same reasons for deleting those apply here. Buck Winston (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there isn't anything about being bisexual and a comedian that's distinguished from being gay and a comedian or lesbian and a comedian that justifies a separate category for them. Buck Winston (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the bisexual musicians category were under discussion it would be relevant. It's not. Every category is considered separately and there's nothing about being bisexual and a comedian that necessitates its own category. Buck Winston (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I to take it from your lack of response that you are unable to explain the fundamental differences between bisexual comedians and gay male and gay female comedians that justifies their separate categorizations? Because you could just say that instead of making an insult. Buck Winston (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall making an insult. (I also notice that you aren't exactly denying a bias...) Anyway, if you're nominating the category for upmerging, you need to prove how there aren't any differences; and prove this by more than just your opinion. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, can you cite the body of evidence that shows that the experiences of bisexual comedians is significantly different from other non-heterosexual comedians? And this time without hurling accusations of bias or malice? In more than one nomination for these LGBT splinter categories I have said that it may sometimes be useful to split out the Ls from the Gs from the Bs from the Ts. In the case of stand-up comedians, it is not. They tell the same kinds of jokes, land the same kinds of gigs, and so on. Buck Winston (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Bisexual comedians] tell the same kinds of jokes, land the same kinds of gigs, and so on." Again, says you. If I'm wrong, provide a source proving this. We can also see what other editors have to say. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, here's a wacky thought, how about you provide a source that says they are significantly different? All well and good for you to swan about demanding this and that from other people; how's about you make with the proof for your claim? To quote someone or other, if I'm wrong, provide a source proving this. Buck Winston (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree with Erpert Keep bisexual comediansMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The jokes that these people tell are not substantially different to warrant being split up. The categories are not large, either, so that argument would be moot. Nymf hideliho! 07:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The LGBT cat is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 30 November 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:British transgender-related television programmes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two more tiny splinter categories. The parent category is nowhere near large enough to require diffusing by country, and there is no indication that transgender programming in the US and the UK are so different that separating them out is needed. Buck Winston (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four. "Related-" is undefinable much less defining characteristic. Is having a transgender character make show categorizable thusly, what if that character appears in only one episode, and what if the character's transgenderness is never discussed, or what about a character only discussing transgender things???? Without a clear, and clearly titled, objective criteria; this cat is purely WP:OC and WP:SUBJ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double upmerge also to the other parents, Category:British LGBT-related television programmes and Category:American LGBT-related television programs resp3ectively. Despite many recent similar discussions I simply do not understand why the nominator keeps proposing merges of intersection categories to only one parent. – Fayenatic London 10:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many cases, the second parent is an equally improper splinter category. In this case however the constituent shows should remain in the LGBT tree and so I agree that the double upmerge is appropriate. Buck Winston (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including the parent, as per Carlossuarez46. Vague, ambigious and non-defining cats. Nymf hideliho! 12:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the target category is not tagged as part of this discussion. And I'm at a bit of a loss as to how a show like, for instance, Transamerican Love Story is not properly categorized as a transgender-related program. Buck Winston (talk) 21:57, 19 November 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.

Learning-related categories[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: Category:Learning theory (education) made a subcategory of Category:Learning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Category:Learning is not contained in and does not contain Category:Learning theory (education). Also some of the articles may need moving from one to the other. My specific concern is that Learning style and Learning cycle are not in the same category.

I think I am saying that I want to put Category:Learning theory (education) in Category:Learning and move Learning cycle from Category:Learning into Category:Learning theory (education)... but I am not really sure so I am hoping people here will agree or offer a better idea.

Sorry I am not following the given procedure. The first step is "Determine whether the category needs deleting, merging, or renaming" and I am not really sure if any of these is required but this seemed like a good place to bring it up.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:45, 14 November 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.

Former country subdivisions of Foo[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to replace "country subdivisions" with "subdivisions". The convention of other such categories was "Former subdivisions of Foo" until these categories were recently created. In each case the word "country" in the phrase "country subdivisions" is superfluous, because each entity is a country.
As well as adding an unnecessary word to the title, these titles also create the phrase "former country subdivisions", which implies that this relates to a "former country". So far as I am aware, Algeria, Egypt, Latvia, India, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Rwanda and The United States are still nation-states, and are not "former countries". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. "Subdivision" is ambiguous. To have a plausible solution, one needs to be informed about designations of country subdivisions around the world. As pointed out before, "subdivision" is a specific designation. "Former subdivisions of India" simply won't work, since there are specific entities named so, see Subdivisions of India. For these reasons the top category is named Category:Country subdivisions. "Country subdivision" is used as a fixed term in the whole category tree and all generic subcategories can use this easily to avoid ambiguity. If one finds another term to be used as the top term, fine. But as long as the top category is not changed, be consistent and stick with to the top level term. ChemTerm (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite your barrage of speedy renamings, the "country subdivisions" phrase is not used throughout the tree. For example, the other subcats of Category:Former country subdivisions by country have long been named as simply "subdvisions", and it works fine. As noted in this nomination and those below, its zealous application has created ambiguities where none existed before.
    Secondly, the term "subdivision" has been identified as a specific term for a particular type of entity only. The refs in are poor, but trhis book clarifies what I suspected from the refs, that those entities in India are actually called "Subdivisions of districts". The existing Indian category should be renamed to reflect this, rather than using a term which has a generic meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And with that logic, the districts are subdivisions of states as U.S. counties are subdivisions of states. Well, I think Category:counties of the United States is more clear than Category:subdivisions of the states of the United States. ChemTerm (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a logic I share or advocate, and it's a complete inversion of my point.
    Counties in the United States are called counties, so we use that terminology. The only purpose of these "subdivisions" categories is to create a set of consistently-named generic container categories for which hold the more specific categories for the actual terms used in those countries: counties, districts, provinces, communes, municipalities etc.
    Similarly, in India, the units are called "subdivisions of districts", and that's what we should be calling them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. The entities are called subdivisions. But you may try to rename Alipore Sadar subdivision to Alipore Sadar subdivision of district. ChemTerm (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They are called "subdivisions" as a shorthand in a particular context. In the case of Alipore Sadar subdivision, the context is clear, but in a generic category the context is unclear, which is why we should use the full name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Official use documents "X Subdivision", i.e. subdivision is the official designation. No official support found for "subdivision of district", which is AFAICS only descriptive. ChemTerm (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support However, having regard to ChemTerm's point, perhaps the renamed entity should become a container category for more explicit things like "Former provinces of New Zealand" and "Former counties of New Zealand" and "Former municipalities of New Zealand". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, and in most cases, that's exactly what they are already. The specific former entities are in a subcat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, and what for India, if you apply the renaming? It doesn't work! ChemTerm (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above on the solution for India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It still doesn't work. And the book you mention is about British India. ChemTerm (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some more contemporary sources which confirm that these entities are subdivisions of districts: [2], [3], [4]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. They are subdivisions of districts, called subdivision: Alipore Sadar subdivision, Alipurduar subdivision, Arambag subdivision, Asansol subdivision, ... Egra subdivision, ... Kalimpong subdivision, ... Siliguri subdivision, Srirampore subdivision, Suri Sadar subdivision, Tamluk subdivision, Tehatta subdivision, Tufanganj subdivision, Uluberia subdivision. ChemTerm (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a not a categry by shared naming feature; it is a category by type.
    The individual entitities are of course just called "Foo subdivision", because the context is clear. In more generalised sage, the context is not always clear, and one of the circumstances is in a category name, where we should spell out that they are "subdivisions of districts". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "administrative subdivisions" - I get the comments above "country subdivisions" is awkward and may (or may not) help the India situation, but nearly every logical generic name seems to be a proper name of some country's subdivisions or another. I would lean to favoring "administrative subdivisions" to clarify that we are talking about subdivisions set up by the governments for overseeing the administration of their countries and knocking out biospheres, watersheds, historic or colloquial regions which never had any official status (Are Appalachia or the Midwest subdivisions of the United States, or the Home Counties of the UK?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many forms of subdivision are not administrative, so that proposal would narrow the scope of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with BHG, this would narrow the scope. Some are historic/ceremonial, some for statistics purposes, etc. Maybe use a neutral term: territorial entity. And then have Territorial entities of Algeria, or Territorial entities in Algeria. ChemTerm (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article territorial entity specifies fixed borders, which us not the case with many informal divisions, and was also not the case for more formal divisions in eras where internal boundaries shifted through conflict. The generic term "subdivision" doesn't carry all the baggage.
    I don't see any need for Carlossuarez's desire to restrict the scope of the categories to entities set up by governments. Those will of course be one type of subdivision, but there are many other types which we can group in sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. It is clear that the subdivisions are of the country in question, no need to call them "country" subdivisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the word "country" is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so for India. ChemTerm (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what else would "subdivisions of India" mean?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read Subdivisions of India "In two of the states of India, namely Sikkim, Manipur and in the union territory Lakshadweep the administrative entities below the districts are named "Sub-Division" or "Subdivision"". ChemTerm (talk) 03:27, 25 November 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:Country subdivisions of former countries[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Revert speedy renaming to remove tautology. This category was recently speedily renamed from Category:Subdivisions of former countries, in pursuit of one editor's desire than any such category must include the unbroken phrase "country subdivision". Whatever about the merits of that phrase in other cases, in this case it has introduced a tautology in the form of a redundant word. "Subdivisions of former countries" makes the scope perfectly clear; there is no need to prefix the phrase with a second use of the word "country". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 14 November 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:Former country subdivisions[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Restore old name to clarify the purpose and scope of this category. This category was speedily renamed last month from Category:Former subdivisions of countries to the current title. At around the same time, a similar proposal was made to rename Category:Lists of former subdivisions of countries to Category:Lists of former country subdivisions, which I opposed. It is now under discussion at CfD Oct 24, and that discussion should be read in connection with this one, because the same issues apply. (I must have missed the speedy renaming proposal in this case).
The problem is simply that "Former country subdivisions" is ambiguous. It can be read either as "subdivisions of former countries", or as "former subdivisions of countries". These are different concepts, and the renamed category introduces unnecessary ambiguity. The only reason for it appears to be one editor's fixation on the notion that any category relating to a subdivision of a country must include in its title the unbroken phrase "country subdivision". I have some doubts about the general merits of this notion because it often creates a tautology, but the ambiguity of this title is much worse than tautology. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Old name seems to have been "Former country subdivisions" - and only because one editor called for reverse merge it got changed to unsystematic "Former subdivisions of countries". There is no "Former cities of countries". This "of countries" is unsystematic. ChemTerm (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Category:Former_subdivisions_of_countries -- Category:Former subdivisions of countries was created at that title on 17 April 2007, and remained as an unredirected category until proposed its speedy renaming on 18 October 2012 to Category:Former country subdivisions. This can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Former_country_subdivisions&action=history
    It is disappointing to see an editor who proposed the speedy renaming trying to distort the record. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The truth is here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_2#Category:Former_subdivisions_of_countries.
    Disappointing is, that one users puts so much energy on destroying the logic of the category tree and reducing usability. ChemTerm (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. A 2007 CFD moved the category to a title at which it was stable for over 5 years, until it was improperly reversed without a consensus. The speedy move should not have happened without a discussion.
    This "logic of the category tree" to which you refer is in fact a recent construct rolled out by you through the speedy process. The category tree worked fine for years without spaltting this stock phrase all over it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are errors in Wikipedia that exist for more than five years. It did not work fine. Category search for "country subdivision" failed to find it. ChemTerm (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to what policy or guideline do you believe that we shouLd add redundant words in order to facilitate a particular form of category search? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. It is the category that contains all country subdivision that do not exist anymore for whatever reason, i.e. country subdivisions that are former. In better English: Former country subdivisions. There is no ambiguity. If you want to have a subcategory with a different, narrower, scope, go create. There is already one: Category:Country subdivisions of former countries. If you destroy the current, then where will all the former entities be hold together? Nowhere. So strong keep. ChemTerm (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The ambiguity is simple. "Former country subdivisions" can be read either as "(former country) subdivisions" or as "former (country subvisions)". The first refers to subdivisions of a former country; the second refers to former subdivisions of a country which may still exist. In the fisrt case, it is the country which has been abolished; in the second case, it is the subdivision which has been abolished.
    These are different types of entity, and it is wrong to try to group them in one category. What we need are two separate categories: Category:Former subdivisions of countries, and Category:Subdivisions of former countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ambiguity exists if A can either refer to B or C, not if A refers to B and C. Category:Bodies of water is not ambiguous because it can contain rivers and lakes. ChemTerm (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think we need a category which includes both "former subdivisions of countries" and "subdivisions of former countries"? Why not just have a separate category for each with a title which clearly defines its scope? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Former country subdivisions" clearly defines the scope: Country subdivisions that do not longer exist, that are Former entities. The more specific ones go below. ChemTerm (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong again. "Former country subdivisions" can be read either as "(former country) subdivisions" or as "former (country subvisions)". The fact you refuse to consider the second meaning does not eliminate that second meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The "better English" of ChemTerm is not that much better. Better still would be "subdivisions of counties that are no longer employed by those countries". But as this is too long winded, the nomination title is best of all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "administrative subdivisions" per my above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many forms of subdivision are not administrative, so that proposal would narrow the scope of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy revert' per BHG, process violation -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The subdivisions are of the country. I prefer putting in words that make clear what we are connecting to what.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 18 November 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:Steampunk music[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: keep. The inclusion criteria for pretty much every music type is fuzzy, and we shouldn't expect this to be any different.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no main article for this genre and the section on it explicitly states how it's ill-defined. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Although the style of the music genre within steampunk has remained infamously eclectic, the bands within that scene are clearly identified. It would be very difficult to write an article on "steampunk music", but it's very easy to define and source the categorization of "the musicians of steampunk". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not defined enough of a genre to categoize things in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This discussion was listed at CFD October 4, where I closed it as "delete". This was not because of the nominator's complaint about the lack of a head article; the current state of wikipedia's coverage of a topic is evidence of the state of Wikipedia, rather than of the notability of the topic, and since Wikipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:USERGENERATED), there is no policy basis for deletion on those grounds. The reason I closed it as delete was because there was a consensus that the genre was so ill-defined that the inclusion criteria would be WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE.
Following discussions on my talk page with editors who felt that deletion was unjustified, I agreed to relist the category. Those editors want to present references which support their claim that there while the genre is ill-defined, there are reliable sources which identify a set of musicians commonly described as steampunk. From what I have seen so far, I am not entirely persuaded that the sources identified meet WP:RS or that they define a consistent set of steampunk musicians. However, a closing admin's role is to weigh consensus against policy rather than to cast a supervote, so my personal doubts are irrelevant. If there is new evidence then it should be presented at CFD to allow editors to form a consensus, which is why I have relisted this discussion.
I will post a notice of this relisting to the previous participants in the discussion, and also those who discussed the closure with me on my talk page. I will also re-create the category for the purposes of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7 editors notified, as mentioned in the relisting comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know we don't have articles for all those bands, but there is a good amount of overlap in the bands that are described in reliable sources as part of the genre. Particularly, it's pretty clear that just about everyone agrees that at least three groups (Abney Park, Vernian Process, and Rasputina) are steampunk musicians. —Torchiest talkedits 13:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MTV article also mentioned Voltaire, further down the line. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Many thanks to Torchiest for producing that very detailed listing of sources, which allows us to move the discussion on. I have a few observations.
The TOR ref looks dodgy. A blog hosted on a news site often applies different editorial standards to that site's main content. Many news sites maintain blogs as a sounding-off space, explicitly outside their normal editorial processes. As Torchiest acknowledges, that's the weakest source.
Setting that concern aside, and taking all the 5 sources listed, I see that scores for each of the bands mentioned is as follows:
Band No. of souces which list it
Abney Park 4
Vernian Process 3
Unextraordinary Gentlemen 2
Vagabond Opera 1
Rasputina 3
The Cog is Dead 1
The Clockwork Dolls 1
Escape the Clouds 1
Professor Elemental 1
Steam Powered Giraffe 1
Unwoman 1
Doctor Steel 2
Voltaire 1
Beware the Other Head of Science 1
Long-Stride Lizzy 1
Ghostfire 1
The Men That Will Not Be Blamed for Nothing 2
Bitter Ruin 1
So these 18 bands get a total of 28 mentions on these 5 lists, which is an average of 1.55 mentions per band. That's a very low level of commonality, and even Abney Park is only on 4 out of the 5 lists.
In the discussion at Category talk:Steampunk music, one of the editors in favour of restoring the category noted that the concept of what is a steampunk band is hotly debated, and offered 3 refs to support that point ([5][6][7]. That point was made Andy Dingley in this CFD, before it was closed for the first time.
So it seems to me that we have agreement that the music can't be defined, and that there is very little commonality in the sets of bands which are defined as steampunk in reliable sources.
There are clearly plenty of sources which justify an article about the concept of steampunk, and I'm sure that the head article Steampunk could be developed even further. But with no agreed definition on what is steampunk, and so little commonality is what the reliable sources list as a steampunk band, it seems to me that the inclusion criteria for a category would end up being "one RS somewhere described it a steampunk". That all seems highly WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsidering the last reference, which is really about a very small set of events in a particular timeframe, rather than an attempt at a comprehensive list, I think it's not quite as scattered as all that. In fact, a search for "steampunk bands" at Steampunk Magazine brings up a few other event listings, one of which mentions Abney Park and Voltaire. I'd say combining all such mentions from that website would give a more comprehensive list. —Torchiest talkedits 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one considers all the steampunk event listings online, then steampunk music becomes a bit more defined, and it becomes quickly fairly obvious who the steampunk bands are. But are they considered "reliable sources" here, is the question. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would also encorage editors to add the sources they have come up with to the music section of the article steampunk or maybe even change Steampunk music from being just a redirect to being an article. Both should not be too hard to do. While articles do not need to precede categories, there is no good reason to not create this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL, you have a "keep" !vote higher up in the section before the relisting. No prob in changing your mind, but two !votes ain't good. Yous houkd strike on or other of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure how to do that. Anyway, since it closed and then reopened, with clear indication that the situation had changed, I see no reason to not add in my views now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • BHG just means you should strikeout (<s>strikeout</s>) your old !vote if your views have changed. —Torchiest talkedits 20:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would ask that people refrain from adding bands to the main Steampunk article (the section on music has become a dump for band promotion and needs a serious rewrite) and instead post it in the List of steampunk works page, with accompanying reference. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source for the genre's existence comes from this Guardian article, which mentions by name Tough Love, Thomas Truax, Abney Park (and specifically Robert Brown), and the Clockwork Quartet. Keep. I would however propose renaming the category to "Steampunk musicians", as it's fairly easy to identify the musicians, but the music itself spans multiple genres (similar to what Folk music does) and is a bit harder to identify. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Jonnybgoode44's notes above, I've created an amended table that only includes bands we have articles for, and added the extra Voltaire and Abney Park mentions:
Band No. of souces which list it
Abney Park 6
Vernian Process 3
Unextraordinary Gentlemen 2
Rasputina 3
Professor Elemental 1
Steam Powered Giraffe 1
Unwoman 1
Doctor Steel 2
Voltaire 3
The Men That Will Not Be Blamed for Nothing 2
Thomas Truax 1
Looking at it that way, we have 25 mentions for 11 bands, which is a little more than two mentions each; they tend to have multiple reliable secondary sources discussing their inclusion in the genre. Note also that Abney Park is mentioned in all six places. I think it would be possible to find additional sources for the other bands describing them as steampunk with more digging. —Torchiest talkedits 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern remains that there is very little commonality in the labelling. One source labels a few bands as steampunk, and another source lists a different set, and a third lists another set of bands with some small overlap. Since there is no common definition of what is (or isn't) steampunk music ([8][9][10]), the result is lots of different sources applying their own definitions and producing lists with very little overlap.
    This is the fundamental problem with all categories based on ill-defined or subjective terms; they may be widely used, but that does not mean they are being applied in the same way. Lists are much better at handling this sort of subjective material, because they can attribute the labelling (e.g. "described as steampunk by X, who noted the widespread use of gears; described as 'fake steampunk' by Y, who noted that adding gears doesn't make something steampunk"). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, until someone actually writes a book on the subject, I doubt any list from a news article is going to set down every band in the genre; typically you're just going to see two or three that exemplify what the author is trying to get across. And the music is not a monolithic style; typically steampunk music mixes something modern or futuristic with a retro style, but that leaves a lot of room to play with (although it does seem to be delineating into a few distinct styles or sub-genres, such as chap-hop). Which is why I suggested a rename of the category to "Steampunk musicians" rather than "Steampunk music", since it's much easier to define who the musicians are than to define the style of the music itself. That having been said, it cannot be denied that the genre of music does indeed exist. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category is kept, I agree that Category:Steampunk musicians is a better title; it more accurately reflects the contents of the category.
    However, these claims about it being easy to define who the musicians are doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence above. In most cases, we seem to have one or two sources, each of which identifies only a small number of bands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your points are good, and I'd prefer Category:Steampunk musicians as well. One thing to consider is that every genre has to start somewhere, and necessarily starts small. Of course, there's no deadline either. :) —Torchiest talkedits 14:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we include the playbills of major steampunk events into evidence, it quickly becomes clear and obvious who the steampunk musicians are. Topping that list are going to be Abney Park, Steam Powered Giraffe, and Voltaire, followed closely by Unextraordinary Gentlemen, Vernian Process, Unwoman, and Elemental (and TMTWNBBFN in GB). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Torchiest: Thanks. I don't think the size is a problem; if editors find the criteria acceptable, there will enough articles to make a viable small category. I'm not gonna cast a !vote myself, and will be interested to see what sort of consensus is reached.
    @Jonnybgoode44: the playbills might well tip the balance, but I wonder if they count as RS? (see WP:PRIMARY) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think playbills would be a judgment call, and sketchy. I'm not advocating their use since I think we have plenty of other material to establish the genre exists. (On the other hand, who better to know who steampunk musicians are... than steampunks themselves?) I'm just saying it's there if absolutely needed. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAICS, there is no dispute about whether the genre exists; the problems relate to defining and sourcing it. There's certainly enough for a head article and a list, but categories don't work unless reasonably clear.
    The issues here are not uncommon, because WP's insistence on reliable sources impedes our coverage of a lot of topics which have not yet gained significant "mainstream" coverage. It's a price we pay for being an encyclopedia.
    I'm sure that in a few years' time there will be many more sources, but we have to make this decision on the basis of what's available now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to the evidence, then: | Here's an interview regarding the first ever "Steamstock" outdoor music festival. It was headlined by Thomas Dolby (considered by many to be the prototypical steampunk and dieselpunk musician) and included Vernian Process, Abney Park and West Coast favorites Lee Presson and the Nails (who aren't technically steampunk but as swing goths they fit in with its cousin dieselpunk and the whole retro theme). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep First off I would like to thank BHG for re-opening the discussion on this. I have been spinning Steampunk sets in Second Life for over two years now and, while I have to admit the definition of what is and isn't Steampunk is 'fuzzy', there is a 'feel' to what does and does not fit within its boundaries. Some of the things I look for is non-traditional instrumentation for the song being played (such as Emilie Autumn's harpsichord version of "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"), blending styles (such as Abney Park's mixing of Middle Eastern and African rhythm's & instrumentation into their works) or mixing in sounds of machines (especially steam-driven ones) or pipes banging (too many to list). Blackfyr (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BHG's suggestion to retitle this makes perfect sense: this isn't a musical genre, it's a cultural genre into which certain musicians fit (or are rammed into by enthusiasts). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another rationale for changing the category name from "music" to "musicians": With one exception (Chap-hop), all the entries in the category are musicians or bands, not musical styles. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another article submitted for consideration: This is from one of Spain's biggest news publications, and identifies Vernian Process, Abney Park, Unextraordinary Gentlemen, Frenchy and the Punk (cited as their previous name, "Gypsy Nomads"), Ghostfire, Dyonisus and Dresden Dolls. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article from the Irish Times cites Abney Park, Rasputina and Vernian Process as steampunk bands. So now (if my count is correct) we have:
Band No. of souces which list it
Abney Park 11
Vernian Process 6
Unextraordinary Gentlemen 3
Rasputina 4
Professor Elemental 2
Steam Powered Giraffe 2
Unwoman 1
Doctor Steel 3
Voltaire 3
The Men That Will Not Be Blamed for Nothing 2
Thomas Truax 1
Dresden Dolls 1
Thomas Dolby 2
I'm actually a bit surprised Elemental, SPG and Unwoman aren't higher on the list, as they've been major headliners recently. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article from Public Radio International also covers the above-mentioned Steamstock festival, singling out Abney Park. It also mentions Thomas Dolby as "protosteampunk", and has a concise definition of what constitutes steampunk music (in their view, at any rate, but a fair definition, IMHO) from AP leader Robert Brown and former violinist Nathaniel Johnstone. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an article from the online magazine "Paper Droids" that lists Abney Park, the Clockwork Quartet, Steam Powered Giraffe, Professor Elemental, Dr. Steel and Vernian Process. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 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:Deduction[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to line up with the category main and Category:Inductive reasoning. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why, exactly, would you do that? Greg Bard (talk) 11:11, 14 November 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:Kumamoto, Kumamoto[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: Keep - jc37 11:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Frankly, it just sounds odd. I suppose it is an Americanism, as it 'New York, New York' (whose category is named Category:New York City btw). The corresponding article is named Kumamoto but there is both the city and prefecture 'Kumamoto'. The category page should have the extra dismbiguation that the article page lacks (due to WP:Commonname) Mayumashu (talk) 04:16, 14 November 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:Yokosuka[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: Opposed' the second. No consensus on the first. - jc37 11:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For disambiguation. The prior Imperial Japanese and current American naval bases were/are both located at Yokosuka City, Kanagawa Prefecture, so Category:Yokosuka, Kanagawa does not disambiguate adequately. Mayumashu (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you would merge the two categories into one and call it Category:Yokosuka, Kanagawa? The corresponding article for the city is named Yokosuka, so maybe merging both into Category:Yokosuka would be better. Mayumashu (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the main Yokosuka, Kanagawa article has been moved to Yokosuka, yes, I agree that merging both categories into Category:Yokosuka would make more sense. --DAJF (talk) 22:58, 14 November 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:Irish recipients of the Medal of Honor[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with the parent category, which is named Category:Foreign-born Medal of Honor recipients. Mayumashu (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The current category name makes it too likely people of just Irish descent will be placed in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 15 November 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:Gay/Lesbian sportspeople by sport[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: double merge as follows (not sure why these details were not set out in the nomination):

– Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another set of small splinter categories in violation of WP:CATGRS and WP:SMALLCAT. There is no body of evidence that supports the idea that gay male sportspeople perform in specific sports so differently or are treated so differently from gay female, bisexual or transgender sportspeople that maintaining a separate category structure is necessary or desirable. Given the rate that LGBT sportspeople come out, these categories are unlikely to expand much in the foreseeable future. All categories should be merged to the appropriate Category:LGBT sport player category and Category:Gay sportspeople and Category:Lesbian sportspeople categories which are still gendered categories but serve reasonably to diffuse the LGBT parent. Buck Winston (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a significant intersection for example with Justin Fashanu.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_English_football http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_association_football "Journalist Matt Williams stated that being a gay professional player in football is still a taboo,[1] which journalist Simon Barnes has said will never change.[2]" MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That an individual is LGBT and a sportsperson is indeed an important intersection. That's why we have Category:LGBT sportspeople and why we have subcategories for specific sports when there are enough LGBT participants in that sport to justify it. As has been explained to you several times, a category for every letter of the LGBT acronym need not be created for every intersection of it and something else. Unless you can show there is a significant difference in the way that, say, a homosexual male plays basketball and a homosexual female plays basketball that is based on their homosexuality, then there should not be gendered categories for homosexual basketball players. The same applies to each of these splintered categories. By the way, you really should disclose as part of your comment that you created all of these categories. Buck Winston (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't understand Maybe...s comment: lesbians are homosexuals. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the arguments above do not show that this intersection is itself a notable topic that is studied in its own right. In fact they suggest it is at best a trivial intersection, and so we should upmerge them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom, as there is no need to split individual sports by L/G/B or indeed T orientation of the sportsman. Thereafter, delete Category:Gay sportspeople by sport and Category:Lesbian sportspeople by sport as empty. BencherliteTalk 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Since they compete as men or as women, this seems a rather pointless intersection. LGBT is not a separate gender. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Not sure we need the LGBT category either. Does being gay make you perform differently? Why is that an important intersection? Nymf hideliho! 20:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:EGRS. Do lesbian golfers perform differently than heterosexual golfers? Could WP articles be written about (gay hockeyplayers or LGBT cyclists)? No and no. Dezastru (talk) 23:06, 25 November 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:Guam people of Hawaiian 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 'Native Hawaiian' is a better descriptor for the ethnicity, and the parent category is already named Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent. Mayumashu (talk) 01:50, 14 November 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:Bibliographies by subject[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: no action: nothing was tagged with Template:Cfr. Tagging the categories is not just a make-work project and is not mere formulaic bureaucracy. Tagging the categories allows those who watch the categories be made aware that the category is under discussion for a rename/merge/deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The names are all over the shop. They should all be of the form "Category:Bibliography of [subject]". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But note that you didn't tag this or any of the subcats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support however as far as I can tell nothing has been tagged. Tagging of categories should be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Should be" or merely good practice? There is a difference. I cannot do it because I an hamstrung by a stupid topic ban. WP:SOFIXIT maybe? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe you shouldn't be personally starting CFDs you can't actually execute? postdlf (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying I am doing something "wrong"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find me a policy that says the page under XfD should be indicated as such? I can't find it. It is merely convention to do it - and a good one at that. Can you see the irony here? I get my arse kicked for editing by convention when it comes to categorisation but bypass convention in a CfD. Such beautiful irony... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFD#HOWTO states it explicitly (and WP:DELETE expressly says "Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page."). It's always been standard practice for any XFD, to tag the page under consideration for deletion with a notice of the XFD discussion so that people interested in it can participate, and I can fathom no reason for not doing so. I've seen CFDs overturned at DRV for relisting because of a failure to tag the category, and rightfully so. postdlf (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And herein lies one of the many problems that faces WP. Wiki-lawyering and wiki-bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is necessary but not to the level of stifling The Project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asking me to present a policy for a practice that serves "The Project" because it gives notice to other editors of possible deletions and fosters a strong consensus by inviting participants—that is wikilawyering. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you need to put it into context. Categories are not visited by readers as much as articles and visited even less frequently by editors. And you want one of the big ugly CfD tags added to a whole bunch of categories? Why? What are you here for? To create an encyclopedia or to have a bit of a wiki-chitchat? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 30 November 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:Works based on The Parent Trap (film series)[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 per WP:SMALLCAT to Category:Songs from films and Category:The Parent Trap films. – Fayenatic London 18:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am not even sure this category is needed at all, but based on its contents, it can at least be renamed to "Songs from The Parent Trap (film series)" and added as a child to Category:Songs from films. Otherwise, simply upmerging to Category:The Parent Trap films might be an option just as "My Heart Will Go On" is categorized in Category:Titanic (1997 film). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nomMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:26, 14 November 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.

Football club fans[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) 22:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hartlepool United F.C. fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Middlesbrough F.C. fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Newcastle United F.C. fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization by opinion. None of the people listed is defined by his ardent following of the team, and the supporter organizations are already listed in the main category for the club. As individuals can be "fans" of multitudes of things— dozens of sports teams and sports alone, much less filmmakers, brand name consumer products, and so on— the categorization is not defining and contributes only to clutter. Precedent established at e.g. CfD 2007/Jun/15 Celebrity football fans, CfD 2007/Jun/12 Arsenal fans, and so on.- choster (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per multiple precedents and WP:OC#OPINION - that these people support X Football Club is not defining. BencherliteTalk 01:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all the reasons given. Also, if there are too many categories created that are applicable to bio articles we get the awful situation were there are just too many categories on an article, making it a less useful navigational aid. The "Winston Churchill effect"... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a categorization by opinion which we do not do. At first I thought these were only user cats, in which case we avoid them, but they manage to survive anyway, but since they are a regular categories we definately should get rid of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I left a note for the categories' creator a couple of weeks ago, but he has not responded. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 19 November 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:Latin Grammy Award for Best Singer-songwriter Album[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: speedy delete, contents already merged. BencherliteTalk 23:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of "Category:Latin Grammy Award for Best Singer-songwriter Album", but without correct capitalization. Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 14 November 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.
  1. ^ Matt Williams (10 November 2005). "Is homophobia in football still a taboo?". BBC News. Retrieved 12 August 2009.
  2. ^ Simon Barnes (6 October 2006). "Football destined to remain the last bastion of homophobia - that's the straight, naked truth". London: The Times. Retrieved 12 August 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14&oldid=1138397090"