Category:Albums produced by "Weird Al" Yankovic[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. He hasn't produced anything but his own albums, and he is not known primarily as a producer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 31 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Permanent category renamed to Category:Chilodontidae (gastropods), as this family name is also in use by fish. Propose changing the corresponding template to {{Chilodontidae-gastropod-stub}}. At this point, the permanent fish category is small enough to not worry about a stub category or template. Dawynn (talk) 20:45, 31 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:United States cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category should follow the established convention of Category:Case law by party (FOO litigation), but it should also make clear, that it's about cases related to Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States only. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:38, 31 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Revolution of 1905. (Please note, that if disagreement with the title of the article should be solved through an RM on the articles talk page and not there.) ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oculi. This is too ambiguous to be a viable category name. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose This change will be of no help to WP readers as is any change that removes information content from names. Hmains (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this page should have the same name as the article it's based around, if you don't like the article's current name we can discuss on the talk page, and if we can agree on a new name then the category's name will be changed accordingly, but in the meantime let's go with the proposed name for the sake of consistency. Charles Essie (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames The cardinal principal to keep category and article titles in synch is essential to maintain consistency between mainspace and the category world and reduce unnecessary confusion for both readers and editors. If an article describes a person or event as being connected to the Revolution of 1905, the logical place to look for or categorize these articles is in a structure for Category:Revolution of 1905., not for Category:1905 Russian Revolution. The title Revolution of 1905 has stood the test of time in mainspace for more than two years. If there is a genuine belief that the title is inherently ambiguous or confusing, then there needs to be an effort to use the requested move process to change the title back to what some people think it should be. Rather than wag the dog by generating needless inconsistency through the CfD process, those who support the inconsistency need to demonstrate a good faith effort to change the article title in mainspace. In the absence of any consensus for a rename of the corresponding article -- let alone the beginnings of any such effort -- this proposed renaming should be supported. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Argentine revolution creates a compelling reason not to rename. Also, in the scope of history since 1905, 2 years ago is recent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as an ambigious and unclear target name. May be necessary to readdress the article rename. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The present name is clear. I do not know whether there may have been revolutions elsewhere in 1905, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 8 February 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:Judicial branch of the Singapore Government[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:not renamed. No prejudice against a renomination that involves renaming the rest of the tree. The BushrangerOne ping only 01:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose The current name accurately describes the contents of the category as does the name of the main article Hmains (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as we have other categories using the branch name for Singapore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 8 February 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.
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: The main article of the category is Judiciary of Colombia, but it was only moved recently and without a RM, therefore not eligible for speedy renaming. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:03, 31 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.
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: This category was previously nominated (here), but closed as no consensus as it was not properly tagged. As noted there, this per the actual Czech term ("kosmonaut") and WP:COMMONNAME. See also [1]. The BushrangerOne ping only 07:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and that most of the non-Soviet and non-American "astronauts" were only astronauts for a small time of their lives (have any been on more than one mission?); so that per our common usage on "by profession" categories; this seems less than necessary, we'd never put someone who had a few photographs published but was notable for something else as a "photographer." Buzz Aldrin had photos published in Life magazine; and Neil Armstrong's photo of Aldrin is iconic; neither is a "photographer" by profession, however. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the lack of professionalism of the astronaut category is also demonstrated by the categorization of space tourists like Mark Shuttleworth in the South African category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:SMALLCAT contains an exception for small categories that are part of an extablished category tree, which Category:Astronauts by nationality is. Also, the argument that being an astronaut/cosmonaut/takieonaut is not defining is inexplicable. Comparing someone who has flown into space with a someone who casually takes photos, frankly, beggars belief. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, but these guys were pilots who for a short period became "astronauts", like the space tourists. And as for "flown into space", you assume too much for your strawman; not all astronauts "fly into space" just like may pro athletes warm benches. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American astronaut Scott Carpenter and Gus Grissom each spent about five hours in space. Pioneering cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin couldn't even manage two hours in space. I've taken longer naps than that. Are you seriously arguing that Carpenter, Grissom and Gargarin aren't defined as astronauts / cosmonauts? Just as consensus is that professional athletes are both notable and defined as an athlete by playing their sport on a professional basis, so too any astronaut who has flown into space is inherently notable defined as an astronaut / cosmonaut / taikonaut, and this will remain true until space travel becomes far more routine than it is today. Do you truly believe that Oldřich Pelčák and Vladimír Remek are not defined as cosmonauts and can you offer any evidence to support your claim? Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – going into space is quite obviously defining and will be for some decades to come. The subsidiary question of whether this is a 'profession' relates more to the category tree than to the existence of the category. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom as the facts supporting the rename are correct. Hmains (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename There may well be planets in this universe where being a space traveler is not a defining characteristic, but here on Earth anyone who has been an astronaut / cosmonaut is de facto defined as an astronaut / cosmonaut, no questions asked. It seems hard to believe that anyone could seriously argue that John Glenn should not be defined as an astronaut because he spent merely a few hours on his first mission before spending a brief spell as a passenger on a Space Shuttle mission and that he was primarily defined by his political career. Both Oldřich Pelčák and Vladimír Remek are clearly defined as cosmonauts in the first sentence of their article, while WP:SMALLCAT explicitly excludes deletion of categories that are part of a larger structure. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 2 February 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Unnecessary layer, small category, and already has a list which is more useful. Other regions do not have categories within Category:Languages of the Philippines. – FayenaticLondon 06:43, 31 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:Hardcore Punk from 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.
Upmerge per nom No reason to single out the United States here. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 3 February 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.
Relisted at 2014 FEB 17 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
