Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5[edit]

Category:Rents[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rents to Category:Renting

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category appears to be more about renting and rentals and the category name should reflect that. I'm not sure exactly what rents is. With this rename, there would be a main article, renting. Vegaswikian 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category covers such a diverse group of topics that grouping them makes it meaningless. It covers at least 3 different types properties: real estate, vehicle, and portable possessions. The normal rental period for those properties are totally different, and yet the category does not cover "leases" (long-term renting). In addition, the category listed economic rent, which is a totally different concept (it is about opportunity cost). --Voidvector 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would suggest refining the contents. As pointed out above, with the proposed rename, there would be a main article. That article would in effect define what are valid contents for this category. Those extra articles can be removed after the rename. Also, if there are diverse topics, that would argue for sub categories and not deletion. Vegaswikian 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 theatre directors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American theatre directors to Category:American theater directors

Nominator's rationale: Rename, American spelling per WP:ENGVAR. Rigadoun (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that Category:Theatre in the United States, Category:Theatre directors and (as far as I can see) all their subcategories use "Theatre". Main article is Theatre director and Theater director is a redirect. Consistency within category tree is more desirable than following WP:ENGVAR (which doesn't mention category names, in fact). No objection to creating a category redirect at Category:American theater directors. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bencherlite - I note the article Broadway theatre uses "theatre" 3 times in the first para. Johnbod 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and, on that note, Broadway_theatre#_note-spelling is interesting, though unsourced (and so I'm not using that note as a source for this discussion!) Bencherlite ^Talk 01:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template at the bottom bears it out, as far as the names of theatres goes. Johnbod 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose The evolving practice in American English is that a 'theatre' is a place used for the staging of live plays, musicals and the like, while 'theater' is a place used for showing movie films. Hmains 23:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Johnbod 00:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - keep this category in conformity with all the other Nationality - theatre directors categories. DionysosProteus 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Car rental[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Car rental to Category:Car rental companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is basically for the rental companies. 'Car rental' seems to be ambiguous as a category. Vegaswikian 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add subcat of Category:Car rental companies for the relevant items. Several articles here (Car rental, ACRISS Car Classification Code, Excess Refund, etc.) are not companies, and are of narrow enough focus it's hard to imagine another category for them. I don't see how "car rental" is ambiguous. Rigadoun (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support a split as another option. So I'll withdraw this proposal and create the subcat and see if another change is needed. Vegaswikian 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Unified Team sportspeople and its subcategories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. Merge not needed since empty. Vegaswikian 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There's no nationality called the "Unified Team", and these categories are needless duplications of Category:Olympic competitors for the Unified Team and its subcategories. Chanheigeorge 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete — the Unified Team only existed for a single Olympiad (both 1992 Winter Games and Summer Games) and a single category is sufficient for all athlete articles. Subcategorization is unnecessary. Andrwsc 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are all currently empty (except having subcategories) after I've made a few edits, so a delete will be sufficient. Chanheigeorge 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Multiple Apparitions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These are mostly one member categories, leading eventually into Category:Apparitions that will never be expanded, all set up by a prolific editor who misunderstands the purpose and use of categories (and whose other edits could be checked also). Upmerge all to next category up, although many are "city" articles like Phoenix, Arizona which should not be upmerged, nor should articles on New Testament persons, or theological etc concepts included in these categories. Many valid categories, for Lourdes, Fatima etc, have been left out of this nomination. Johnbod 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over classification. If upmerged, why not simply move them to Category:Apparitions after removing all of the extra listings in the categories, like the cities where these are minor events. Vegaswikian 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some sub-categories of Apparitions, like Category:Marian apparitions with church approval & it's opposite number, as they are well-populated and I think useful. Johnbod 20:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I also think the church approval/without approval one is due for a rename - approved by what church? Any - that's problematic? or are we talking RCC only? If so, it should read that way. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the with/without approval ought to be changed for grammar's sake - I don't think that the Mary's appearance is either upon approval or despite disapproval of any church even if that's what (ugh) is meant. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are RCC approved, or not, and a rename would be a good idea (nb these categories are not in this nomination). Johnbod 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this tree has now been cleared out, and the categories de-layered by User:History2007, who must be aware of this debate, but has not chosen to take part, or make his own nominations. Leaving former sub-cats of Category:Apparitions orphaned is no way to achieve anything. Yet again CfD is pre-empted. Johnbod 12:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Prosperity[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spammy single member category, apparently created for Legatum. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all clear what would belong in such a category. Smells like spam. Rigadoun (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ABC Television[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:ABC Television (Australia), to match ABC Television (Australia), and avoid confusion with American Broadcasting Company. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I seem to recall this being discussed once before somewhere. Vegaswikian 19:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:University of Heidelberg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg faculty, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Argentinean singers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete, CSD G7 by creator request. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Argentinean singers to Category:Argentine singers

Nominator's rationale: Merge as unnecessary duplicate, or delete if still empty at the end of the discussion. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and conventions of Category:Argentine musicians by instrument. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom, I created the category, and then emptied it after I found Category:Argentine singers. Gareth E Kegg 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Towns in Bangladesh[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename both. Kbdank71 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Towns in Bangladesh to Category:Cities and towns in Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Rename, There is little official recognition of the distinction between a city and a town in Bangladesh. What distinction there is (i.e. governance by a municipal corporation or a city corporation) will produce only four entries in the city category. The Cities and Towns of X is not a novel proposition to WP, as already such categories exist. I'm bundling the Category:Cities in Bangladesh into this. As both can be renamed to Cities and Towns and merged. Otherwise the confusion of two separete categories, neither of which feature a strong enough reason for deletion, and neither can be merged into the other without causing further confusion (like, what is a city doing in a category of towns). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge both to Category:Settlements in Bangladesh. This should deal with all of the nominator's appropriate concerns without creating too many layers of categorization. After this merge, Category:Settlements in Bangladesh would still only have about 30 articles in it, so no reason to subdivide. LeSnail 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Yes, that should do it. We can always split categories when there's a lot more articles to be categorized. Thanks for the comment. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thirty settlements sounds to me like the area is terribly undercovered. Aren't there villages? I can't find a category for them. I don't know much about Bangladesh but I'm surprised that one of the most populous countries in the world would have so few settlements. If there are other levels, I don't support a big merge in the settlements category, as it will become dauntingly big when filled. Rigadoun (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge both to Category:Settlements in Bangladesh per Lesnail. Can be divided if & when it gets too full. Johnbod 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question The article List of cities and towns in Bangladesh distinguishes between Metropolitan areas (cities) and Municipal areas (towns). If this article is correct, then the change should be opposed; if the article is incorrect, it needs to be corrected. In any case, do not upmerge to Category:Settlements in Bangladesh. The "Settlements" categories should just have subcategories, as is the common practice for the 190-some categories of this name. Hmains 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original proposal to merge both cats into Category:Cities and towns in Bangladesh still may be a valid option. List of cities and towns in Bangladesh clearly shows that there are only four metropolitan areas (i.e. cities) in Bangladesh, which is too little to populate a separate category. As for villages, there are about 72,000 of them, but not one is represented on WP. The idea is to upmerge all into "settlements", and then split the cat as and when it starts becoming over-populated. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Olympic medalists for Great Britain and Northern Ireland[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No consensus. Vegaswikian 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Olympic medalists for Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Category:Olympic medalists for Great Britain

Nominator's rationale:

The team is just called "Great Britain" in the Olympics.
The team was "Great Britain and Ireland" before Ireland broke away, and those medalists were included in the category.
The parent category is also called Category:Olympic competitors for Great Britain, and their child categories are also Category:Olympic gold medalists for Great Britain, Category:Olympic silver medalists for Great Britain, and Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Great Britain.

Chanheigeorge 02:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. It's a bit counterintuitive, but I think nom is correct about team name used in the Olympics, and category should correspond with that and the daughter categeories. Snocrates 03:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I wonder then if we should move all of the Taiwanese Olympic categories to Chinese Taipei, since that is how the country is referred to at the Olympics? It seems to me like that would be a bad move, since it would create non-conformity with all other Taiwan cats, but if we don't always use the team names used in the Olympics, then a lot of the rational for the proposed rename falls away. Certainly, something needs to be done to make the Great Britain Olympic categories consistent, but I'm not sure they shouldn't all be moved to the modern name. LeSnail 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — we need a category name that encompasses all years, and simply using "Great Britain" accomplishes that easily. Andrwsc 17:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The Olympic movement's nomenclature is inconsistent. The IOC uses the abbreviation GBR and the full name Great Britain but the national association is called the British Olympic Association (BOA) (no "great"), but the BOA describes itself accurately as: "The British Olympic Association (BOA) is the National Olympic Committee (NOC) for Great Britain and Northern Ireland". We should name national categories after the name of the country, which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly abbreviated to the United Kingdom. The category's use of "Great Britain and Northern and Northern" is a reasonable compromise between the IOC's inaccurate Omission of Northern Ireland and the more common usage of "United Kingdom". The subcategories should be renamed to use "Great Britain and Ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per BHG. LeSnail 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.