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. I don't think there's another singing Sylvester whom this guy might be confused with and he's not known by his full name as a performer. His article is at Sylvester (singer) but I don't think the category needs the parenthetical. I Want My GayTV (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was just listening to my Antipope Sylvester IV Greatest Hits CD in the car this morning! No one else at Sylvester is known professionally as "Sylvester". Should someone one day write an article on "Drinkinstein" it would be categorized as a Sylvester Stallone song and there would be no confusion. I Want My GayTV (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Antipope Sylvester VI"? More likely the reference to others was indicating Hannah Sylvester, Michael Sylvester, or Robin Sylvester. Songs by singers with a first name and a surname are often referred to colloquially as "SURNAME songs" (especially within certain populations or music movements in which the musician is a part), so the possibility of confusion is not zero. But personally, if I heard the undisambiguated "Sylvester songs", I would of course think back to the 1951 classic "I Tawt I Taw A Puddy Tat", sung by Tweety and—yes—"Sylvester". Good Ol’factory(talk)04:48, 7 February 2011 (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:rename. If they were known in English as "governors," then that's the term we should be using in our English Wikipedia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Russian-American Company article indicates that the government took the company over in 1818. The term "Governors" may also be an issue as the article indicates these people were called Russian for "Chief Managers" and were known only in English as "governors". (I have no direct knowledge of this subject area and am unsure of the reliability of the article.)RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, but the point remains. It was a primarily a commercial position, not a political position. The title "Chief Manager" that you mention illustrates this clearly. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2011 (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.
type932 makes a valid point. These are internal model codes and are not related to individual platforms as the codes are different for say, an estate or coupe, even though they could share significant underpinnings. Not sure if development codes is quite the right name though. Warren Whyte (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as they are not "platform codes". However, these codes are used beyond the developmemt phase, so "Mercedes-Benz model codes" is more appropriate. The convention should also apply for BMW, Toyota, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:22, 7 February 2011 (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:World Wrestling Entertainment Armageddon[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.
But you should also see the sister categories too. Not even one has "World Wrestling Entertainment" in their names, if is in the name, than they use the "WWE" abbreviation. ArmbrustTalkContribs02:00, 1 February 2011 (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 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 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. The static code analysis tools should be separated from the theory and algorithms. (Split has been performed, this category currently only contains the tools.) —Ruud12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps yes. I'm not really certain what the most common name these tools is. They are also simply referred to as static checkers. Another complication is that some of the tools in this category actually perform dynamic analyses, so code analysis tools or program analysis tools would be other options. Anything including the word "tools" would be an improvement though. —Ruud18:50, 3 February 2011 (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. Teh "cities" category is defined as including all incorporated cities and towns, which equates to "municipalities" the subject of the parent. RichFarmbrough, 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per nom. I moved List of cities in California to List of municipalities in California going on two years ago. As that list explains, CA municipalities may be formally titled as "cities" or "towns," but those labels are completely arbitrary and do not indicate any substantive distinction, which is why they were listed all together, and why they are categorized all together. Compare with other states that have separate classes of municipalities that are distinguished by population and lawmaking abilities, where it makes sense to categorize and classify them separately. postdlf (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the word "municipality" does not appear in the Government Code does not mean that the term is not used in California ... just not used in that particular context. —Stepheng3 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2011 (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.
Oppose The problem is, the official name is actually the Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy as can be seen on the picture of the trophy and was indeed what they announced the trophy to be named when it was created. However, I am willing to conceed that this may have become a common name issue although as I mention above, the numbers from google suggest Rocket Richard Trophy had a 2:1 ratio for hits. Making it the more common name. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (listify if necessary) -- This appears to be an awards category, which we only allow for the most major awards. This is not a Nobel prize or on that level. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing an athletic award such as this to a Nobel Prize seems somewhat spurious. While the award has not existed for as long as some of the other trophies given by the league, its importance is no less major than the league's other awards, as it is given to the goals leader in a season, and the other awards all appear similarly categorized. --Kinut/c23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly one of the most important individual awards in the sport. To compare it to the Nobel Prize is a bit silly since its an athletic award. It is extremely common to have award winner categories for sports. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (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.
Don't rename "Streams" is the more prominent terminology in the reliable sources. For example refer to the book "Streams of Zionism: Revisionist Zionism, Religious Zionism, Labor Zionism, General Zionists, Cultural Zionism, Hovevei Zion". Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: "Streams" has a very classy literary ring to it. But, if a non-expert stumbles on this category, it would likely be interpreted as small rivers in Israel.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
translation of "stream" also means kind of "denominations". In any case, whatever the best translation is acceptble to me. I would leave it up to English natives to make the chose. --Midrashah (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin, User Midrashah (talk·contribs) is (a) the creator of this category and (b) admits to a lack of expertise in English and (c) is not opposed to renaming of this category, per the reasons cited in the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom's comments. I agree that it's not necessary for WP to adopt the traditional phrasing in this case, as we're not dealing with a proper noun with an article to which WP:COMMONNAME would apply. "Types" would seem to be the regular modern English way of referring to this topic. Perhaps the nominated category could be retained as a category redirect. Good Ol’factory(talk)20:53, 8 February 2011 (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.
Don't Rename What HTTP stands for has become trivia. While Occuli raises a good point about the lead article, I think that article is what deviates from the common name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and redirect. It's a really technical category. The readers and editors who care about this category will easily recognize the expanded name (and I doubt there would be consensus to rename the main article). --Pnm (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2011 (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 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:Basins of the continental coast of the English Channel[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. A subcategory or subcategories can be created if needed to distinguish between French and British areas, but with two entries now, this seems unneeded.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Basins is ambiguous. This is also a triple intersection that may not be defining. Proposal simplifies the name and hopefully add clarity. It may be desirable to also move these contents into Category:Drainage basins of the United Kingdom in addition to renaming or use that as an alternative to the proposed rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2011 (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. Basins is ambiguous. One of these clearly is a drainage basin, the other gives no idea from the article what it is. Delete, upmerge or other rename should be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably if we had an expert who was leading this. For me I have to look at each one and try to figure out what is the correct choice. Since the categories are thinly populated, and in many cases the articles are not well written, the process is slow. I think I'm through a good portion of these so there may not be many more. I did just split Category:Basins of Antarctica and I'm not sure if that needs upmerging or some other action. I think the last two that need inspection are Category:Basins of China and Category:Basins of France. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: both of the basins in this category are probably better characterised as geographical features (intermontane basins) than hydrological ones, although they each form an upper part of a larger drainage basin (being part of the Waitaki and Kawarau/Clutha River catchments respectively). I'd be happy for us to have a Category:Drainage basins of New Zealand, but I'm not convinced these basins belong in it. So while I agree the current category name is ambiguous, I'm not sure renaming it to the suggested alternative is appropriate either.
Well, they are by your own words, within drainage basins. What are you proposing as an alternative? If this rename were done wouldn't we at least be moving in a correct direction with the name? Of the two articles in this category, only one is identified as intermontane and so far this has not been deemed in need of a category. So the merge as proposed and the creation of Category:Intermontane basins could also be a solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are they part of a drainage basin, they are the upper part. So they are coherent drainage basins - just not ones that are typically identified as such. So maybe the proposed renaming is fine. There are other NZ basins that are not coherent drainage basins, such as Hamner and Kaitoke Basins. These are pull-apart basins with a river running in one side and out the other (the Waiau and Hutt Rivers respectively). But since we don't have articles for those basins, I guess we don't have to worry about them at present. Okay, rename as proposed. --Avenue (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2011 (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. Basins is ambiguous. Both of these are for river basins which should fall into the drainage basins categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2011 (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. Another single entry ambiguous category. I would not oppose deletion. I'm basing this rename on what little information the article has, but it does appear to be a drainage basin. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "drainage basins" to clarify that these are items of physical geography, rather than water containers used for washing. Neutral on the choice between "Slovenia" and "Adriatic Sea". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 1 February 2011 (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.
