Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 27

< May 26	May 28 >

May 27[edit]

Category:Yugoslav Air Force airports[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav Air Force airports to Category:Yugoslavian Air Force bases

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To reflect the normal naming of air base categories. Not sure which form is best since there are several used in Category:Military airbases. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The country Yugoslavia no longer exists. Why maintain this category at all? – IbLeo (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want, why not address the issue head on and suggest deleting Category:Yugoslavia and everything under it. Clearly this is an issue that is not going to get resolved in this discussion. If all of the others remain, then why should this one be deleted for that reason? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But before deleting Category:Yugoslavia and its sub-categories, somebody should create categories (if not already done) for the new countries Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro etc. and move each category entry appropriately. Of course this is quite some work. So for the moment let's leave it. Proposed renaming is fine with me. – IbLeo (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2008 (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:Mayhem (band) albums[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayhem (band) albums to Category:Mayhem albums

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to pre-emptively disambiguate. It's not like there is a more notable 'Mayhem' that is going to be releasing albums. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The only times I think it makes sense to disambiguate is if there's language or region confusion (Chicago, Ashanti) or if there are two groups using the same name (Badlands, Pretty Boy Floyd). Occasionally there's an outlier ("Extreme members" is a bit problematic, so we use band there), but just matching the article name seems unnecessary to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the main article is at Mayhem (band). I've been away from CfD for a while, so have forgotten whether in such circumstances we tend to follow the name of the lead article. My inclination is to say keep as it is so that the two match. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as it matches the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the first time I have come across a category named like this, and I do a lot of heavy metal category work. There is no need to pre-emptively disambiguate in the article space, so why should there be in the category space? I think it is obvious that the Mayhem (if releasing albums) is a band, and, as I say, it's not like there will be any other Mayhem releasing albums. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. We have {{catmore}} to help contributors locate the main article, and I have added it to the top of this category page. I agree with the nominator that pre-emptive disambiguation is not necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — Ri-donk-ulous! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — The disambiguation is silly and looks bad. All album categories that I know of do not use it even if the main article does. Same thing for discography pages, for example. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom and all the arguements above. Lugnuts (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - as per 5theye ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per "what other kind of Mayhem would put out albums"? tomasz. 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the main article. (Maybe it's just me, but "mayhem" sounds like a sub-subgenre of thrash metal.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Possibly sounds like it, but isn't unfortunatly - although I can see why keeping it to match main article ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also everyone please see - Category:Anthrax albums - the article for Anthrax is Anthrax (band), however the category for that is without the disambiguation on the end ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It does not need to match the main article. The only reason there is a (band) tag after the main article is because Mayhem by itself can mean many things. The albums page does not turn into some disambig. page. There is no need to have (band) after it. Undeath (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Categories are not named after articles, though they complement each other and do often match. We don't disambiguate unless it's necessary, and in this case it's necessary for the article but not for the category. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done some research and found these:
- Category:Alabama (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in April this year.
- Category:Rush (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in March this year.
- Category:Family (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in February this year.
- Category:Dealership (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in January this year.
- Category:BlackHawk (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in January this year.
- Category:A (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in August 2007.
- Category:Genesis (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in January 2007.
- Category:Queen (band) albums was renamed to include "(band)" in November 2006.
Etc... Whilst, of course, "Alabama albums" could perhaps be thought to contain albums about Alabama, rather than albums by Alabama, a common theme in the discussions above is matching the name of the lead article. Bencherlite^Talk 20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, with the exception of 'Alabama albums' (which, to me, says 'Albums from Alabama') I would contest every one of those. Whether there is a 'consensus' in former categories for discussion debates to rename these or not, the people actually making these categories do not agree with you. As I said before, I do a lot of category work surrounding heavy metal music, and this is the first time I have ever seen a category named like this, but I could easily list 10 times as many that are not named like this when the articles are. In complete seriousness, what purpose does naming a category like that actually serve? 'Oh, I thought these were albums by the crime mayhem. Thank God I was told they were actually by the band.' The first coherent argument in favour of keeping it named like this is listed below, but possibly the biggest name in black metal ever is a little more notable (and so more likely to be what people are searching for if they type 'Mayhem albums') than some redlink record label. Before you jump up and argue that, I've heard of Mayhem Records, I know a little about them. They aren't nearly as a big as the original Mayhem. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated A albums and Family albums for renaming, to match their lead articles and to reduce ambiguity. "A albums" could be albums that whose titles begin with the letter A, albums whose titles begin with the word "A" or albums by artists whose names begin with A. When I see "Family album" I think of photograph albums (Category:Family (band) songs was renamed at the same time because "family songs" could be songs by or about families). Reducing ambiguity in category names is a good thing. If people might confuse the nominated category for the category for albums released by the record label (or if someone decides that there's such a music genre as "mayhem metal" or suchlike), why not disambiguate? What's the cost in doing so? Otto4711 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each proposal should be judged on its own merits. If there is an argument for others to be renamed, good for them, but those more specific arguments hold no weight here. If disambiguation is needed, then the same basic principles should be followed as with article disambiguation- that which the reader is more likely to be looking for should usually be given precendence, an d, in this case, I don't think there is any doubt which the reader is more likely to be looking for. The cost of over-disambiguation is that people will never be able to work out exactly what they want to be searching for, people will find themselves looking at 'disambiguation categories', linking to one significant categories and a batch of pathetic ones with loosely related names and we will end up with hideously convoluted naming guidelines. Basically, disambiguation should be used only when absolutely needed, and it is not needed here; we could easily manage without it, and it would probably actually be simpler without it. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is Category:Mayhem Records albums, and also Category:Mayhem (band) members. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter can be changed the same as this - the former has a different name, they may be similar, but not the same. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:38, 28 May 2008 (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:Beverly Cleary book 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: rename. Flowerparty^☀ 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beverly Cleary book characters to Category:Beverly Cleary characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More in line with other similar categories like Category:Stephen King characters. Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request: if you rename, please update the link in the last row ("group 5") of Template:Beverly Cleary books to match. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2008 (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:Fictional characters by name[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as prime examples of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify second and third nominations in the relevant Anthroponymy articles Mary and Rachel (given name) then delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to listify at the time of writing, since all 4 Marys and all 7 Rachels in the categories are already in those lists. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support retention of content in lists mentioned by Fayenatic and deletion of categories in agreement with the notion that this is an example of overcategorization, per nominator's opinion. Looked for other instances and did not find - thus, this appears to be a comprehensive list of categories for deletion for stated nomination reason. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT by coincidence of name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom mathwhiz 29 22:55, 31 May 2008 (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:Beverly Cleary[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for an author. Otto4711 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - From the edit histories, I suspect that the creator may have thought this category was required as a parent for Category:Beverly Cleary book characters, which he had just created one minute previously. But since there is nothing in this category other than the sub-cat, it serves no real purpose. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do we do categories for authors and their works? Although BC's books aren't categorized, there's a ton of articles on them. Is Category:Stephen King and incorrect category? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on her books should be in Category:Novels by Beverly Cleary, which should be housed in the parent Category:Novels by author (although why we need a separate Novels by and Books by category structure remains a mystery to me). We don't categorize creative works directly under the name of the creator, as it is a form of overcategorization akin to performer by performance. Otto4711 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The crucial distinction is that Category:Stephen King has far more material in it, including four sub-categories. My general view is that three sub-cats is always sufficient to keep, but two is doubtful at best. PS - BC was one of my personal favorites way back when. Cgingold (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete: I don't object to eponymous categories on principle, but this category is now unnecessary. I've now added more into the category: sub-Category:Novels by Beverly Cleary (underpopulated), author article, and nav template. However, I've also added the categories for novels and characters into the nav template, so the head category is no longer required. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I was the one who created it. Probably because I was looking for a nice way to sort the various BC cats as mentioned above. I just put her books into Category:Novels by Beverly Cleary, so I guess that takes care of them. Although I would fight to the death over BC articles, i just want them categorized the same as any other author. I think I used Steve King's cats as a template when I made these, but if that doesn't apply that's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 08:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & overwhelming precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2008 (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 characters in written fiction[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Propose deletion For the same reason categories Fictional children and Fictional little girls were deleted. Suffers from POV problems. People have different ideas about how young or old you have to be to be classed as a child/little girl/boy, etc. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the category is not properly tagged for deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Procedure and tag the category, and follow that process for any future nominations. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course - My dear fellow, you really ought to make at least a minimal effort to get your facts straight before launching a new CFD. In point of fact, Category:Fictional children wasn't deleted -- it was kept. And it was kept with the explicit understanding that articles would be moved into a newly-created array of sub-categories, of which Category:Child characters in written fiction is a prime example. Cgingold (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this category was established following, and in accordance with, the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 13#Category:Fictional children. Note that Category:Fictional children was not deleted as stated in the nomination, but kept. The category now nominated is part of a structure of categories (established by user:Cgingold and myself, and populated with the assistance of user:For An Angel) which are very clearly defined on each category page and are carefully integrated with other category structures. The word "little" is not used in the category. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronise me, Cgingold. It's been a long week. I was of the impression that category Fictional children was deleted as the last time I saw it, it had been tagged for a speedy deletion and things were looking pretty final and to be perfectly frank if there were any justice in the world, it would have been deleted. Fayenatic, I am aware that the word "little" is not used in the category, I was merely making a reference to category Fictional little girls because it was a similar POVish category. Personally I think the entire "structure of categories" should be deleted. I realise this would be a waste of your hard work and I'm very sorry but that's my opinion. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, that was hardly intended to be patronizing, JOM. If you're referring to "My dear fellow", that was a very slight bit of levity on my part; perhaps not being British, I may have misjudged the use of the phrase -- if it's generally regarded as patronizing, I'll be sure to avoid it in the future. All the same, I stand by the remainder of my comment. It has indeed been a long week -- especially considering the amount of effort I expended on saving Category:Fictional children. So I was sorely irked to have you submit another CFD without having bothered to take even the most minimal step of looking into the outcome of the previous CFD -- which effectively authorized the creation of this one. Is that really asking too much? Cgingold (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "My dear fellow" part was alright, it was the sarcastic tone of your comment that irked me. Nevertheless, perhaps you're right. Maybe we should keep the categories in question. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sorry to hear that you perceived that as sarcastic -- annoyed, for sure, but I wouldn't call it "sarcastic". I think it was probably the "My dear fellow" part that confused you in that respect -- I really should know better than to mix different tones in the same sentence. Cgingold (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Cgingold. I often make that mistake myself. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the idea is to categorize characters in more specific sub-categories, that's why Fictional children was kept. The Child characters in written fiction category clearly states which characters should be categorized as that, I think it is a much more serious name than "little girls". --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent cfd (but remove the Cleary 'subcat' as it contains some adults). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most child characters in written fiction end up in movies and videos so this is not a distinction worth categorizing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: but this category is for those child characters that first appeared in written fiction and then this written fiction was film or videogame adapted. --Lord Opeth (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most actors act in both movies and television and yet we still have both Category:Film actors and Category:Television actors. For An Angel (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent CfD. For An Angel (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (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:Redeveloped ports and harbours[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 Category:Redeveloped ports and harbours to Category:Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts but it's still not very clear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Redeveloped ports and harbours to Category:Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Sorry about this. I created this category yesterday, after some deliberation and proposing some options here. After populating this category, it has become clear to me that "Ports and harbours" may be too specific. Many of the converted areas are sections within port areas -- wharves, docks, etc. -- and others are brownfields along rivers and lakes being converted to a post-industrial use that may never have been actual "ports" at all. I believe "Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts" is more inclusive of these areas. Is there support for this rename, or are there other, better suggestions? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ports and waterfronts revedeveloped for post-industrial uses which is what this cat covers; although the cat says don't included merely redeveloped ports that are still ports; the name of the cat seems to invite exactly those inclusions as "redeveloped" tends to mean upgrated not gutted and used for something else, at least in US usage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added this cat to Embarcadero, San Diego and I see the article does use "redeveloped" in pretty much these terms. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. This leaves open what they may have been redeveloped for. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a problem with this new category. I came upon it when Port of Boston was added. There is a lot of non-industrial development along the Boston waterfront, but it is still very much a working port. Where do you draw the line for inclusion? Does New York Harbor belong?--agr (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure when I added it to the Boston port article, as it should be for ports that are now primarily non-industrial. If it's still there, I'll remove it. Perhaps there are articles on some of the redeveloped wharfs where the cat can be applied for Boston. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's Long Wharf (Boston) that I was thinking of. Apologies, see, I only know the port as a tourist. For me, that was the port. It's one more example of why the cat should be modified so it can include waterfront areas that are less than entire harbours. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2008 (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:Second World War rebellions[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 Category:Second World War rebellions to Category:Uprisings during World War II. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Second World War rebellions to Category:Irregular warfare in World War II

Nominator's rationale: The syntax adopted in the Military History Project is to use the USA usage of World War II, and to place it at the end of category name. The proposed category name name is therefore Rebellions during World War II mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Irregular warfare in World War II seems better, or "Uprisings". I don't think you can "rebel" against a foreign occupation. "insurgency" is best avoided I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was also my choice, but "rebellion" was used in many of the articles that are in the category, so thought I should ask--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My immediate thought after reading the above remarks was, "how about ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Uprisings during World War II?" Then I looked through the contents of the category, and lo and behold, most of them in fact use the word "uprising" in their title. That being the case, why not use a cat-name that also incorporates that word? "Irregular warfare" is a much broader notion, already covered in the extensive array of "Resistance" categories, whereas these articles deal with specific uprisings. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well some do - 6 have uprising in their titles, but about as many cover wider subjects. Maybe this should be linked into the resistance tree, and restricted more tightly? Actually Category:World War II resistance movements is organized mostly nationally, which is fine, but there might be a place for a category collecting articles about full-time irregular partisans, as well as one on specific uprisings - obviously all these overlap, but I think there is a difference between the mostly part-time resistance of Noerthern & Western Europe, and people living in the forest etc in Eastern and Southern Europe. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Irregular warfare" would seem to cover everything from the Einsatzgruppen to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, to partisan movements, the Bataan Death March, the French Resistance, the assassination of Heydrich, the attempt on Hitler, the spies sent everywhere, codebreaking, and arguablly unrestricted submarine warfare, strategic bombing, Pearl Harbor attack, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the invasion of neutral countries, war crimes of all kinds, accidental bombings of Switzerland by the Allies or Dublin by the Axis, etc..... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about my suggestion, Category:Uprisings during World War II? Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Uprisings during World War II to reflect the corrected contents of the category. Movements have their own category and did not belong here.Hmains (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2008 (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:Mayors of Las Vegas[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 all. Flowerparty^☀ 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Las Vegas to Category:Mayors of Las Vegas, Nevada

Category:Mayors of Anaheim to Category:Mayors of Anaheim, California

Category:Mayors of Ann Arbor to Category:Mayors of Ann Arbor, Michigan

Category:Mayors of Annapolis to Category:Mayors of Annapolis, Maryland

Category:Mayors of Atlanta to Category:Mayors of Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Mayors of Baltimore to Category:Mayors of Baltimore, Maryland

Category:Mayors of Boise to Category:Mayors of Baltimore, Boise, Idaho

Category:Mayors of Boulder City to Category:Mayors of Boulder City, Nevada

Category:Mayors of Chicago to Category:Mayors of Chicago, Illinois

Category:Mayors of Cincinnati to Category:Mayors of Cincinnati, Ohio

Category:Mayors of Cleveland to Category:Mayors of Cleveland, Ohio

Category:Mayors of Dallas to Category:Mayors of Dallas, Texas

Category:Mayors of Detroit to Category:Mayors of Detroit, Michigan

Category:Mayors of Flint to Category:Mayors of Flint, Michigan

Category:Mayors of Grand Rapids to Category:Mayors of Grand Rapids, Michigan

Category:Mayors of Hartford to Category:Mayors of Hartford, Connecticut

Category:Mayors of Henderson to Category:Mayors of Henderson, Nevada

Category:Mayors of Los Angeles to Category:Mayors of Los Angeles, California

Category:Mayors of Milwaukee to Category:Mayors of Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Category:Mayors of Minneapolis to Category:Mayors of Minneapolis, Minnesota

Category:Mayors of New Haven to Category:Mayors of New Haven, Connecticut

Category:Mayors of New Orleans to Category:Mayors of New Orleans, Louisiana

Category:Mayors of Newport News to Category:Mayors of Newport News, Virginia

Category:Mayors of Honolulu to Category:Mayors of Honolulu, Hawaii

Category:Mayors of Indianapolis to Category:Mayors of Indianapolis, Indiana

Category:Mayors of Kansas City to Category:Mayors of Kansas City, Missouri

Category:Mayors of Philadelphia to Category:Mayors of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Category:Mayors of Pittsburgh to Category:Mayors of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Category:Mayors of Providence to Category:Mayors of Providence, Rhode Island

Category:Mayors of St. Louis to Category:Mayors of St. Louis, Missouri

Category:Mayors of San Francisco to Category:Mayors of San Francisco, California

Category:Mayors of Seattle to Category:Mayors of Seattle, Washington

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Started adding more for the US by city category. Feel free to tag and and more. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)~~I think I have tagged and listed all of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and precedents. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per all above. Neier (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (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:Constitution Party[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 all. Flowerparty^☀ 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Constitution Party to Category:Constitution Party (United States)

Category:Former Constitution Party state affiliates to Category:Former Constitution Party (United States) state affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Constitution Party (United States). (Constitution Party is a DAB-type page, of course.) The other subcategories also use the "CP (US)" formatting I'm proposing here. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to clarify, and to match article. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and roundhouse.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. and all of the above.--JayJasper (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - an obvious change. Cgingold (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Both per nom, as proposed new names are a lot clearer and fit in with other party categories. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 1 June 2008 (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:U.S. Libertarian Party[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. Libertarian Party to Category:Libertarian Party (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to avoid abbreviation and reflect name of main article Libertarian Party (United States). Subcategories use the same "LP (US)" formatting. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to clarify, and to match article. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and Roundhouse.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. and all of the above.--JayJasper (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - an obvious change. Cgingold (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, as proposed new name is a lot clearer and fits in with other party categories. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 1 June 2008 (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.

Useless plant cats created by bot, Episode VII[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 both into Category:Myrsinaceae. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Two more plant categories created by User:Polbot which should be deleted for the following reasons.

Category:Heberdenia - a genus which contains two species. Not enough for a whole cat of its own. Delete & upmerge to the family: Category:Myrsinaceae.
Category:Pleiomeris - as far as I can tell from searching, this genus only has one species. Even more useless. Delete and upmerge to Category:Myrsinaceae.

Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Myrsinaceae--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Heberdenia, two species should be enough to keep; Delete the other as a monotypic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (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.

Various Provinces of Spain[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: yes, we all agree that there is a problem. Cities should have priority over provinces in the main. Something should be done. Don't look at me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this, but I'm simply going to outline a problem here, one which I discovered ten minutes before leaving for an appointment :/ ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Provinces of Spain is a complete shambles, as far as naming is concerned. There are over 40 subcategories using a mish-mash of "Foo", "Foo province", "Foo (province)", and "Region of Foo", virtually none of which seem to agree with the names of their parent articles. I haven't tagged any of them or detailed a list here, but something needs to be done about them. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They don't seem too bad; some of the 17 autonymous communities consist of only one province, others of several, and so on. Nothing to do with Spanish regionalism is straightforward, so I wouldn't expect the category to be. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the article and category names at least agree with each other, even if there isn't uniformity between the provinces? Why should ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Albacete province be the category forAlbacete (province), for instance? Looking more closely, I see that most of the articles are at Foo (province) and most of the categories are at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Foo province. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My knowledge of Spanish geography is limited. I would suggest that the suffix "(province)" should appear where (but only where) there is a city with the same name so that a disambiguator is necessary. If the problem is of a place of the name name elsewhere, it should be "foo, Spain". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not as bad as it seems on the surface. I disagree with Peterkingiron on his proposed resolution (assuming a resolution is required): I would expect Madrid, Barcelona, Granada, etc. to be the cities not the provinces of the same name; nor would I expect that I would have to input "Madrid, Spain" to get to the article on the Spanish capital, when I wouldn't have to do that for Paris (despite a department of the same name), London (a county), Berlin (a state), Hamburg (a state), Rome (a province), etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (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:Lists of laojiaos in the People's Republic of China[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnotable. Pointless - they lead to no articles about the actual laojiaos and only to the place names. They're short articles, and have maybe 10-or-so bullet points with a single external link. It's just copying from the original site. No one will ever use the pages - there is no information anywhere on any of them. mathwhiz 29 02:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / keep. Your complaint seems to be more about the articles and their content than the category. I don't see anything wrong with how the category is named or structured right now, but that says nothing about the quality of the articles, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An exemplary category, containing lists of laojiaos as advertised. (Having dutifully read laojiao I wonder if these should not be called 'laojiao centres' (or centers - the article refers to 'labor' and 'centre') throughout?) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have prisons by suddivision elsewhere Category:Prisons in New York... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That category links directly to articles of the prisons themselves - this category links to lists, which link to place-names where the laojiaos are - there is nothing about the specific center. mathwhiz 29 23:01, 31 May 2008 (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:Queensland Parliamentarians[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. Flowerparty^☀ 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Queensland Parliamentarians to Category:Queensland politicians

Nominator's rationale: Merge Both serve the same purpose. "Queensland politicians" is more standard. Bush shep (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, but watch for duplicate categorization in the process as some people might already be in one or more existing subcategories of Category:Queensland politicians. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are all Queensland politicians in Parliament? Are there not politicians in some kind of local government? If I am right then Keep with the Parliamentarians as a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep certainly these are not the same. There are be politicians in cities and towns in Queensland. I just made Category:Queensland Parliamentarians a subcat of Category:Queensland politicians which is where it should be. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a very satisfying distinction when you consider that there is also a Category:Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. Which, again, I'd argue is more standard than "Queensland Parliamentarians". Perhaps I simply chose the wrong category to merge it with. Bush shep (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, A politician is not necessarily a parliamentarian. Merge to the MLA is not appropriate either, as this category also contains members of the now abolished Queensland Legislative Council. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 1 June 2008 (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.