Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 30 December 2 >

December 1[edit]

Category:Fuzors[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category. Fuzors is a redirect. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No real objection to recreating later if notable articles are added, but it's difficult to maintain a category whose lead article is a redirect and that article doesn't explain the term nor does the one article in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. It also seems there are Fuzors with transformers, and fuzors with zoids. Oy. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 2 December 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.

Category:Elite Guard[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. As with the Gobot Guardians category previously deleted, not every arbitrary division of a group of fictional robot toys merits separate categorization. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used by the manufacturer to designate some of its toys. 21 articles in this category. Help the navigation. --Crazy runner (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If kept it needs to be renamed in Elite Guard (Autobots). --Crazy runner (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Why not merge the other ones in Category:Autobots? not sure why they should remain if this one needs to go?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the other categories are for specific toy sets developed and marketed in conjunction with each other, whereas these are drawn from across various toy lines and pieces of the fiction at the whim of their creators, thus there is no natural association the way there is for Dinobots and the like. Personally I'd be fine with upmerging them all and frankly culling about 90% of the articles since I've yet to see one at AFD that hasn't been completely non-notable but I don't think the CFD would pass. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge let's start with this one, then start pruning the rest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 17 December 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.

Category:Female Anglican bishops in Australia[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: already merged by category creator. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. This category is too narrow, and needs a broader scope. It currently contains only 3 articles, which appears to be all the articles we currently have on Anglican women bishops. AFAICS, there have been 4 such bishops (we have no article on Alison Taylor), and Sarah Macneil is to be installed next year as Bishop of Grafton.
If we had articles on Taylor and MacNeil, the category would next year meet my bare minimum viable size of 5 articles ... but bishops are not appointed very often, so the category won't grow fast.
It appears that in total there are more than 40 women around the world who have become bishops in the Anglican Communion[1][2], of which en.Wikipedia has articles on 20. That makes a more useful category.
Mote that all the 3 articles currently in this category are already in subcats of Category:Australian Anglican bishops, so a dual merge is not needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge per nom well reasoned.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Splitting by nationality is often a good thing, but when only about forty entries are possible and only about twenty entries are extant, there's no point in splitting by nationality. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as creator of this category) I can accept the rename to 'Female Anglican bishops', given the alternative is to write two more articles in short order. ;-) I wrote the third article in this category in order to justify creating category (isnt three enough ??? .. come on, people use it!), but category intersection and wikidata will suffice. (and those pageviews will probably jump to the new cat) Unless there is some objection BHG, do you mind if I go ahead and create the new category myself, and snow close? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:25, 2 December 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.

Category:Shops by country[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. -Splash - tk 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently has only two subcategories which have adequate parents. In the long run, the related branches of the tree in this area probably need some pruning and cleanup. If kept, rename to Category:Retail stores by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 1 December 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.

Category:Shops[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. -Splash - tk 22:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ran into this through one of the subcategories and it was suggested that this probably needs to be discussed for a rename. The problem with Category:Shops is that shops ambiguous and has different meanings in different places. Category:Stores probably does not work either since we have a dab page at store which leads to retail store which is probably the best choice here even though retail store is a section redirect (just changed from a redirect to the whole article) to Retail. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that there is a WP:ENGVAR issue here: "shop" is the common usage in the UK & Ireland, whereas the transpondians prefer "store". Since ENGVAR deprecates switching from one variant of English to another, wouldn't it better to rename to Category:Retail shops? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the contents, store seems to be the most common form. And as I stated, shop is ambiguous. In the US, in many cases, it is thought of as a small store. That makes using it problematic. Is there a term without this problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Most contents are of the form "xx stores", so retail stores is a better container. Keep shops as a redirect category, I'm fine with that remaining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There is this category and there is also its parent Category:Retailers and neither of them has any inclusion criteria and thus no way to distinguish what subcats and articles are to be included here in Category:Shops or Category:Retail stores and what in Category:Retailers. If such inclusion criteria could now be written, it would certainly help in the present discussion. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose—a store is where goods are stored; a shop is where goods are purchased. We don't go storing, but we do go shopping. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Category:Shops; we use the word "store" much more often than not in category names, and more importantly, the articles that are contained in the head category are almost all "xxx store". Your definition of "store" is not the most common one; and we also park in a driveway and drive on a parkway but that doesn't really matter, does it?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better know as a warehouse. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is essentially an ENVAR issue. The British go to shops; Americans to stores. I suppose that retailers operating solely over the Internet are neither shops nor stores. I would suggest that we keep the parent and have national categories that are either shops or stores according to local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we use both with shops generally being used for small stores. That takes it out of the realm of WP:ENGVAR. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that if you want to bring up Internet shopping most of the alternative names there contain store as part of the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an ENGVAR issue. All my local High Street retailers have shops, including the large supermarkets. As I said, this is a category where the natioanl category should be determined by local usage. In England, my pharmacist colloquially has a chemist's shop. If you told me that she had drug store, I would immediately know that you came from the other side of the Atlantic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the UK meaning has a different meaning on the other side of the pond. So that makes it ambiguous and hence unacceptable as a category name. Stores here are different then shops, which are really a subset. Yes they are related, but they have different meanings. That means ENGVAR is off the table since it does not work. Also remember that a shop can mean a place where 'things are manufactured or repaired', better know as a workshop. So yet another reason why this name does not work for retail stores! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Click through on shop and notice that it has two primary meanings: retail establishments, and workshops. It needs some qualifier; I'd be willing to go with "retail shops" but "shops" alone is ambiguous, and I'm guessing it's also ambiguous in Britain. Seyasirt (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment How about Retail stores and shops to include both Atlantic sides? Hmains (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. Seyasirt (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something. With workshop and machine shop being other meanings of "shop", shop alone is not enough. "Shop talk" is not negotiations on sales of merchandise, but people talking about their workplace more generally. I could for example write "Lois told her husband Clark that they would not engage in shop talk while visiting her father." And the fact that their "shop talk" would relate to their working in a newspaper would not prevent me from describing it as "shop talk" at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 23 December 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.

Category:Bollywood actors launched in 90's[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is probably a generally bad idea. There are no other "launched in" (whatever that means... in what, a rocket?) actor cats that I know of, and it seems like it could quickly get out of hand. --Geniac (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Categorising performers by when their career took off in particular field would lead to massive category clutter.
    This sort of topic would be better covered by an article such as 1990s in Bollywood. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge let's not start a scheme like this... otherwise we end with "novelists who debuted in the 1980s" and it only gets more cluttered from there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge When a ship is launched is definable but less so for actors. Does a non-speaking role count, a commercial, a local play? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. RevelationDirect has a really good point that the start of a career is difficult. For example, there are some actors who had their first roles in uncredited parts, does that count as launching a career or not? What about people who were successful as child actors who left acting for a while and then made a new start as adult actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to add Category:Bollywood lead actors launched in 80's to this discussion for exactly the same reason. --Geniac (talk) 00:51, 13 December 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.

More LDS hymnwriters by nationality[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. This and the American-only debate, even taken together, do not adequately converge on how to handle the nominated categories, so perhaps a discussion elsewhere is needed to settle the question. -Splash - tk 22:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"last rung rule" - More obscurantism from the darkest corners of the bureaucracy. How many people voted on that? A whopping five wikipedians, I expect.-MacRùsgail (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is not a set of "German Latter Day Saint hymns", "Dutch Latter Day Saint hymns", "Scottish Latter Day Saint hymns" etc." - Actually there are German and Dutch Mormon hymnbooks, but don't let the facts bother you. Not all LDS hymns appear in the hymnal, and some hymns in it aren't LDS either. -MacRùsgail (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone of the articles on non-American people whose text appear in the current LDS edition of the hymnal. By their nature these categories are limited to people who are Latter-day Saints. The American category does have an article or two on people who have written works appearing other places than the LDS hymnal (Orrin Hatch comes to mind). Also, the vast majority of hymns in the German and Dutch LDS hymnals are the same ones that are in the English LDS hymnal. The fact of the matter is that the actual contents of the Dutch category were Dutch-born Americans writing hymns when they actually wrote hymns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 4 December 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.

Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters[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. See above for rationale. -Splash - tk 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:American hymnwriters, Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters and Category:American Latter Day Saints
  • Nominator's rationale This category currently violates guidelines on not sepetrating out people by religion, ethnicity, sexuality and gender in ways that totally separate them from the mainstream. Currently all other hymwriters, be they Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Buddhists, who are Americans, are grouped in the general category Category:American hymnwriters. The relevant ERGS guidelines say that if this category does exist, the contents should all also be in Category:American hymnwriters or a non-religion specific sub-section thereof. For what it is worth, this is the only subcategory of American hymwriters, there are no others. The current set-up implies that Latter-day Saints are a special group in hymnwriting, and either not real hymnwriters or not real Americans. The fact that this current break-off was recently imposed by an editor who is an administrator tells us that realistically the only way to fix this situation is to upmerge. Anyway, there is real no good reason to have one by nationality sub-category of Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters and one by religion subcategory of Category:American hymnwriters. The only way to justify keeping this category at all is if we create Category:American Protestant hymnwriters, Category:American Roman Catholic hymnwriters and Category:American Jewish hymnwriters as well as other by religion sub-categories as needed. Either we should subdivide all American hymnwriters by religion or none of them. The current subdivision out of only members of one religion is totally unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge all per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we merge this and all of the other national ones together, we'll end up with over 100 different hymnwriters in the same category. Splitting them by nationality makes it substantially easier to find someone, and the idea that they're "either not real hymnwriters or not real Americans" is inferred, but not implied. And do Jews and Catholics even write hymns? The Psalms and other biblical texts are used by both, but I'm not sure whether Catholics or non-Orthodox Jews have hymns. I have no opposition to creating hymnwriter categories by faith, as long as we've got enough hymnwriters in the same faith to justify the existence of a category, since unlike most professions, the writing of religious hymns is directly related to the writer's faith. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Roman Catholics write hymns and hymnals in which they keep them. There is also much cross-pollination of hymnary between the various branches of Christianity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JPL & Obiwan. I'm not sure which category Nyttend refers to as being over 100, but splitting hymn writers by denomination and nationality at the same time is not helpful to navigation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I think hymns are primarily a Christian phenomenon. If Buddhists or Jews use hymns, they are unlikely to be suitable for Christians, so that a separate category would be appropriate. LDS theology is rather different from other kinds of Christianity that a separate category from LDS might be appropriate; similarly Christian Science. I would want to see that there is a significant usage of LDS hymns in non-LDS denominations before I would be happy with this nom. I would not suggest any split between other denominations.

Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • And Unitarians have very different theology than many other Christians, but we merge Unitarian hymnwriters with other hymnwriters. There is at least one Roman Catholic in the American hymnwriters category. The notion that Latter-day Saints are a more different group than any other religion is just not justified. William Clayton's "Come, Come Ye Saints" has been included in hymnals of other denominations, and the works of Orrin Hatch and Janice Kapp Perry have received some widespread acceptance. The same appears to be the case for Lorin F. Wheelwright's "Star Bright" Christmas carol. Still, This is not called "American Christian hymnwriters", it is not a religiously clear category. The American category contains Theodore Frelinghuysen Seward and Mary C. Sweard who were Christian Scientists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this listed separately to the other nationalities? -MacRùsgail (talk) 12:26, 4 December 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.

Category:Child's Play characters[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 to both parents, i.e Category:Horror film characters and Category:Child's Play (film series). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with no chance of expansion, given that several character articles have recently been deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but perhaps only to the film series cat. The normal outcome on articles on fictional characters is to merge all the characters into a single list. This leaves the characters category largely empty. One franchise: one category should be the rule. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you not put characters from a horror film in a category for horror film characters? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:48, 4 December 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.

Historical societies[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:Historical societies of Foo, seems agreeable among the participants. -Splash - tk 22:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all good subdivisions of Category:Historical societies, but it's silly to have three different name formats. Let's pick one format and rename the others to match it. I'm partial to "Historical societies in COUNTRY", since that seems to be the most common way to do a by-country split, but I don't really care that much. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time for me to disagree with that being a parent category. Some historical societies are learned societies, such as the Filson Club in Louisville, Kentucky, USA, but most aren't; they're much more like garden clubs than groups of scholars. We should remove Category:Historical societies from Category:Learned societies and instead put the latter category onto articles about historical societies that really are learned societies. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all -- The degree to which they are learned will vary from case to case. I have some doubt as the correctness of the title of the Argentina category, whose contents seem to be about "national institutes" rather than societies. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Argentina, most historical societies are national institutes. --190.19.86.67 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator and BrownHairedGirl - the arguments as to what constitutes learned societies and how to define, I think needs to be expanded here, it seems insufficiently explained as to what criterion makes a historical society 'learned' or not, and how the distinction is to be made from what is available in the articles about the societies. satusuro 09:09, 16 January 2014 (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:Woman bishops[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 26. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge this newly-created (yesterday) category to the pre-existing Category:Female bishops, which was created in 2007.
The use of "female" rather than "woman" aligns with the parents Category:Female religious leaders and Category:Female Christian clergy and religious.
If the merger proceeds, Category:Woman bishops should be recreated as a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom - and trout to the creator for having yet again created a duplicate of a gendered category. Please search more carefully - category creation is incredibly cheap and easy, but deleting/merging wastes a week of time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; no good reason to have two separate categories for this topic. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge -- They are obviously the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Bishops are adults, and woman is the preferred term for an adult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 23 December 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.

Category:Zamboanga City[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 only argument to rename the categories became invalid, after the undiscussed move was reverted and the following RM was unsuccessful. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match corresponding main article. RioHondo (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, or Rename all to Category:Zamboanga (city) etc to avoid massive ambiguity. The head article on the city is Zamboanga, but the term is massively ambiguous. The city is geographically located in the Zamboanga Peninsula (geographical region), most of which is in the administrative region of the Zamboanga Peninsula. The region is itself split into 3provinces: Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, and Zamboanga Sibugay. Thereis also the former Republic of Zamboanga.
    I have not formed a view on whether the head article about the city should be named Zamboanga or Zamboanga (city) ... but even if there is a consensus that the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a category name requires greater clarity to avoid miscategorisation. The addition of the disambiguator "(city)" respects the current use of "Zamboanga" for the head article, but adds clarity. However, I see that the head article was moved only yesterday from "Zamboanga City", following a technical request which allowed the move to happen without discussion; I will now revert that move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per WP:MOSPHIL, only Philippine cities that have the same name as a Philippine province may be titled with "City" attached to it. No province is currently named Zamboanga. Hence naturally, Filipinos know ZAM as the city. Just like Surigao the city, different from Surigao del Norte and Surigao del Sur. --RioHondo (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply When making this nomination, it was wrong of you to neither link to the head article nor disclose the fact that it had just been moved without discussion. I trust that you did not intend to act sneakily, but disclosure would have removed the appearance of sneakiness.
      Your comment that "Filipinos know [[Zamboanga International Airport|ZAM]] as the city" is bizarre; I trust that the good people of the Philippines know the difference between an airport and a city. It is also odd to argue that the lack of province currently sharing the title removes ambiguity, because a) Wikipedia covers historical topics as well as current issues, b) the title is also used by a region.
      Feel free to open a WP:RM discussion, to move the article to your preferred title. Given the ambiguity between the city, the region, and the former province, I will oppose any move to an undisambiguated title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I have no idea what you mean by linking to the head article, or that it was moved without discussion (how was i supposed to know this? I dont pay attention to every single edit history of every single article, and there are lots of them. And sneakily? Such bizarre accusations. I gave the example on Manila, the city; Manila, the capital region, Manila, the old province in the Davao talk page. For me, this is clearly sticking to the Manual for naming our Philippine city articles. Will do the RM alongside Davao.--RioHondo (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply. Aye, you noted there that "The same can be said of "Manila" which may refer to the City of Manila, the Metropolitan Manila that people normally call as simply Manila". But per WP:COMMONNAME, if any entity is to get the undisambiguated title, it should be the entity for which it is most commonly used ... and per your assertion, that is the metropolitan area rather than the city.
          As with many other local style guides, WP:MOSPHIL appears to be the work of a very small number of editors. I am sure that they worked in good faith, but they don't seem to have paid much attention to the policy on article titles, particularly WP:COMMONNAME. That's why it is inadvisable to assume that the application of a local guideline such as WP:MOSPHIL will be uncontroversial; a WP:RM discussion is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply WP:Commonname is not reliable in our case, as the media refer to our cities by their long official names like Makati City, Cagayan de Oro City, Bacolod City, Tacloban City, Angeles City, ALL Philippine cities for that matter. You name it. That's why we have our MOS, so we don't have to go by Media names/official names.--RioHondo (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • @RioHondo:, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Your MOS sets out to reject the policy that wp "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Don't be surprised that editors prefer to follow the Wikipedia policy at WP:COMMONNAME. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • @BrownHairedGirl: 50/50 actually. Keep in mind most of our cities were only ratified in the last several decades (more than half of the almost 200 in the last 10-15 years only) so there are plenty of available literature/RS that refer to these cities by their plain names (as municipalities). And there is also the obvious split between local and foreign media, with local english usually preferring to name Tacloban, for example, as Tacloban City; and CNN/Reuters/other foreign media preferring to name the Typhoon Haiyan-ravaged city as simply Tacloban. Cities are a fairly recent phenomenon here, and they are growing in number every year with some completely reinventing their names like Science City of Muñoz and Island Garden City of Samal according to the whims of their sitting mayors. We can't allow that here, even when their useage has become common already, no? City of so-and-so, city this, city that. I know in common local parlance, we just call them by their plain names. --RioHondo (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but the WP:RM on Talk:Zamboanga City ended in a non consensus. –HTD 16:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The attempt at rename on the article failed. We need disambiguation at least as much in categories as in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2014 (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:Impact Wrestling[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 to Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling television programs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too small. Contains only two articles. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:13, 1 December 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.

Category:General elections by country[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. Although there seems general agreement that something should be done, there is no clear direction on what it should be. -Splash - tk 22:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created to house parliamentary elections. These are variously referred to as general elections, legislative elections, parliamentary elections and federal elections. However, the first of these (the current name) is ambiguous, as in some countries "general election" refers to mixed elections - i.e. combined presidential and parliamentary elections (examples include Mozambique, the Philippines, Zimbabwe etc etc). Parliamentary elections is an unambiguous name, and hence is proposed as a preferable title. It also appears that Category:Parliamentary elections by country was the original category (it's two years older than the general election one), but was rather than bring it to CfD, an editor just emptied it into the General elections one.
One of the subcategories (Finnish general elections) is currently the subject of a CfD, but I will also nominate the following categories for renaming as part of this because the names of the categories do not match the names of the articles in them (the suggested names all match the article titles used for that country):
Number 57 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the parent as a container category. However the subcategories should be specific according to the title of the assembly. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Container for what though? Parliamentary elections or mixed elections? Number 57 12:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 01:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Some of these countries, such as India and Brazil, are federal states; in these countries, these elections may include state/local officials as well as, or instead of, members of the national parliament. Having a parent "Parliamentary elections" sounds like a good idea, but let's make it a separate category tree. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the exception of Brazil, the articles in the sub-categories that I've requested renaming are only about the legislative elections (and are not called "general" elections - the article titles match my proposed category renames - do you support those being renamed? Number 57 13:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses to me and to MacRusgail make me wonder what precisely you're talking about. Unlike in the UK, legislative elections in federal countries sometimes involve elections for subnational legislators and other kinds of positions, and they're sometimes called "general" because they're not just subnational and not just national. They also don't necessarily involve the election of the executive. Meanwhile, I'm opposed to any renames here-and-now on the grounds that you propose, because that's really not what the beginning of the discussion began with. I might have a different reaction if you asked for this to be speedy-closed and promptly renominated everything individually. Finally, note that I have no opposition to renaming the Israeli thing, since that could rightfully be speedied. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would be entirely right if the articles in the categories in question were indeed general elections. However, they are not - the articles in the categories (e.g. French legislative election, 2012, Latvian parliamentary election, 2011, Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012 etc) are solely about elections to the respective parliaments. The categories have been misnamed for some unknown reason. Also, the subcategories have been part of the CfD since the very start, and were not added at a later point. Number 57 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the creator of these categories, and used the term "general election" in the Irish/UK sense to refer to an an election for all the members of a legislature (or a set tranche thereof) ... as opposed to a by-election, which is an exceptional process caused by one or more people vacating their seats.
At the time, I was unaware that in the USA and some other presidential systems, the term to refers to an election for two or more different types of office.
However, from a reading of the definitions, it seems that the UK/Irish terminology is just a subset of the American definition. The 3 examples cited by Number 57 are all general elections to a legislature; in each case, elections to the legislature are not held simultaneously with those to other offices. So the American definition has no applicability here ... and the categories are correctly named. I accept that there are problems of ambiguity, but that is a different matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the categories can be correctly named when they do not match the articles in them. Two of the above articles cannot be described as general elections in any sense of the term - France and Ukraine both have semi-presidential systems, and by definition, a general election in a country with a presidential system includes the election of the president - these articles do not, as they are solely about legislative elections. You may have a point with Latvia (as it is a parliamentary republic) but I would argue there is the potential for confusion with using the term "general" for Latvian elections given that the president is popularly elected. Number 57 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those elections are general in the sense of electing all Assembly members. Since those countries do not have any mixed elections, the American usage has no applicability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - General elections are different to parliamentary elections, by-elections etc. -MacRùsgail (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Some "general elections" are actually just parliamentary elections. I agree that truly general elections (where parliament and president are elected together) could perhaps have its own tree, but British general elections are parliamentary elections, and shouldn't really be in a separate category tree. Number 57 13:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an Amerocentric view. See the article general election, in which it is clearly explained that a general election in some systems is an election for all or most members of a legislature, as opposed to a by-election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I'm British, I don't see how I could have an Amerocentric viewpoint. And in reference to the general election article, it also points out that a general election in countries with a presidential system includes the election of the president. In the case of three of the categories nominated above (Brazil, France and Ukraine), the countries have a presidential or semi-presidential system. Number 57 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The head article would be better written if it referred to some countries with a presidential system, i.e. those with mixed elections. I think you are taking to narrow and prescriptive a view of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. As the creator of this category, I accept that in hindsight the two meanings of "general election" makes its usage here confusing for those readers used to the American usage of the term for "mixed elections". I would like to see a better term to clarify the category's intended scope: elections for all or most of the seats in a legislature.
    However, I don't see any common adjective which would work in all cases. National legislatures adopt many different names: Assembly, Parliament, Congress, etc. Using any of those terms is non-neutral and would look often silly (UK General elections categorised as "congressional", French National Assembly as "parliamentary" etc). Is there any inclusive terminology which doesn't jar? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unhappy with "parliamentary elections", "legislative elections" would appear to be the answer, as it is a generic term for such entities. Number 57 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Legislative elections" is indeed better. But wouldn't that include by-elections? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 14 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_1&oldid=1090390928"