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:deleteG7 The consensus at the template's talk page is to return to the slightly less convenient but vastly less problematic method of tracking subtemplates. This goes for the category's subpages as well. JIMptalk·cont 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. While this may be a hidden category, is it really needed? At this time it has over 154,000 articles and that number will just keep on growing. Nothing on the page or in the history gives any indication as to why this category may be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now at least) The point of the category is to keep track of how the template is being used to aid in future development. The hope is to make the template faster and easier to use. A new version would have to be compatible with the input current at the time of implementation but there'd be no point in keeping options which had fallen into disuse or could be easily eliminated in favour of better ways of doing the same (or better) things. Once the process has been completed the category (and it's subcatogories and subsubcategories (except for the accidental ones)) could be disposed of. In the mean time, yes, I suppose I could put an explanation of the purpose on the page. JIMptalk·cont 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran into a page that was in 5 categories in this tree. Yes they are hidden, but if you use or view the hidden categories this is overwhelming. Since you can see what links to a template, I was going to suggest not categorizing directly into the parent, and maybe keeping the sub categories. Now I'm not sure that I would be willing to accept that. This just seems like overkill. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for as long as it is useful in development. It's a hidden category, so most people will never see it, and if helps trace and fix the Convert template's bugs, then it's a net positive. I don't suppose this cat is designed to stay up forever; have some patience.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2013; 15:36 (UTC)
Comment Actually, we're going to need more than Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Convert since it's not just a question of what pages use the template but how (specifically what the settings are for various parameters) but, yes, it could be done with "What links here". JIMptalk·cont 03:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Jimp says it's being used temporarily to track parameter usages and aid development, then it's going to be a positive as Ezhiki said. Osiris (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But how is it useful? Can the future development of the template be carried out by doing data mining rather than creating "category clutter"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Toolserver with be replaced by a Wikimedia Foundation equivalent so there is no need to assume loss of any tools. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (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: Main article of the category is now at Aksyon Demokratiko. –HTD 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but is English not a widely used language in Phillippines as a former American colony? If so, was the change of name necessary?
While English is a widely used language in the Philippines, some parties' names are in local languages, even if English is the language used in the rest of the text; this is actually a result of prevalence of English, as even non-English names are treated as if they are English. Think of it as the case of Fianna Fail, Kuomintang or even Saenuri Party. See this English news report, for an example. In addition, while the party is referred to as "Aksyon Demokratiko" in English, it is almost never referred to as "Democratic Action" in any language, just as news reports in English don't refer to a "Soldiers of Destiny Party". –HTD 15:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 April 1 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This discussion should have more input. So I am relisting it, and will notify the Filipino Wikiproject, Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines
Rename per HTD to match parent article. The group also doesn't call themselves Democratic Action.--Lenticel(talk) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that for example the Parti socialiste is at Socialist Party (France), and the Partito Socialista Italiano is at Italian Socialist Party. I presume the logic is that per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the name most widely used in English. The nominator says above that "the party is referred to as 'Aksyon Demokratiko' in English", but I don't see any evidence for this, and the article is unreferenced. The nominator may be right, but it would be helpful to have some evidence one way or the other, rather than just assertion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to these two English news articles, they are indeed called Aksyon Demokratiko 12. A Philippine gov't agency also calls them Aksyon Demokratiko 1. They also name themselves as such in their Facebook official page (as stated in their article) and their yahoo page 1. (Note, I'm neutral on the validity of these "official pages" since anyone can make them if they feel like it). As for the counterargument of calling themselves Democratic Action, I found this WikiPilipinasarticle. However, this article's reference on the Democratic Action claim is a dead link--Lenticel(talk) 14:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Must've been copied from Wikipedia when this was titled "Democratic Action"... which actually translates into Tagalog as "Demokratikong Aksyon" and not "Aksyon Demokratiko". –HTD 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some (really old) news links: [1], [2], [3]. Most news sources on this party never translate their name into English.
My theory on why the French (Socialist Party (France)), Polish (Law and Justice), Spanish (Popular Party (Spain)), Swedish Center Party (Sweden)), etc.) political parties' names are in English in English publications is there are not that quite many English publications on those places, hence most WP:RS in English about them are from outside the country, which translate their local names into English. Now, on why Filipino (Lakas-CMD), Irish (Fianna Fail), Israeli (Likud Yisrael Beiteinu), Indian (Bharatiya Janata Party), and even the likes of Malaysian (Barisan Nasional) and Quebecer (Parti Québécois) parties' names are in the local languages in local English publications is that English is the predominant language in their publishing industries, this means the local English publications don't feel the need to translate their names into English, as the local populace either already know what those mean, or is immaterial on the presentation of the news. In the Philippines, all of the national broadsheet newspapers are in English (I dunno if there's a new Tagalog broadsheet); while most (not all) national tabloid newspapers are in Tagalog; the tabloids aren't usually WP:RS. AFAIK, almost all newspapers in Cebu that should pass WP:RS are also in English. –HTD 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. evidence suggests the common name is the tagalog name, even in english-language publications.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2013 (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:WP:OC#AWARD. The one article about a hall of fame is in plenty of other categories. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2013 (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. Overly granular breakdown and currently unneeded. Each category contains only the corresponding "Beaches of FOO" subcategory. The only by-country subcategories of Category:Outdoor recreation are Category:Outdoor recreation in the United Kingdom and Category:Outdoor recreation in Wales, both recently created by the same user. They are unneeded because we can comfortably fit everything into the corresponding "Sport in FOO" and "Visitor attractions in FOO" categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unnecessary tier of holding categories. Sionk (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. These categories are overly-granular, and they cateorise by an attribute which is better categorised in other ways. Note that this is one a series of recent nominations of categories created by User:Skinsmoke, and most of these categories seem to be questionable. I have left a note on Skinsmoke's talk page asking them to refrain from further category creation until these discussions are closed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 9 April 2013 (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.
