< November 30 December 2 >

December 1

Category:Fuzors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category. Fuzors is a redirect. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No real objection to recreating later if notable articles are added, but it's difficult to maintain a category whose lead article is a redirect and that article doesn't explain the term nor does the one article in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elite Guard

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Elite Guard to Category:Autobots
Nominator's rationale: Merge. As with the Gobot Guardians category previously deleted, not every arbitrary division of a group of fictional robot toys merits separate categorization. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the other categories are for specific toy sets developed and marketed in conjunction with each other, whereas these are drawn from across various toy lines and pieces of the fiction at the whim of their creators, thus there is no natural association the way there is for Dinobots and the like. Personally I'd be fine with upmerging them all and frankly culling about 90% of the articles since I've yet to see one at AFD that hasn't been completely non-notable but I don't think the CFD would pass. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge let's start with this one, then start pruning the rest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female Anglican bishops in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: already merged by category creator. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Female Anglican bishops in Australia to Category:Female Anglican bishops
Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. This category is too narrow, and needs a broader scope. It currently contains only 3 articles, which appears to be all the articles we currently have on Anglican women bishops. AFAICS, there have been 4 such bishops (we have no article on Alison Taylor), and Sarah Macneil is to be installed next year as Bishop of Grafton.
If we had articles on Taylor and MacNeil, the category would next year meet my bare minimum viable size of 5 articles ... but bishops are not appointed very often, so the category won't grow fast.
It appears that in total there are more than 40 women around the world who have become bishops in the Anglican Communion[1][2], of which en.Wikipedia has articles on 20. That makes a more useful category.
Mote that all the 3 articles currently in this category are already in subcats of Category:Australian Anglican bishops, so a dual merge is not needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shops by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE. -Splash - tk 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently has only two subcategories which have adequate parents. In the long run, the related branches of the tree in this area probably need some pruning and cleanup. If kept, rename to Category:Retail stores by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shops

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 22:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ran into this through one of the subcategories and it was suggested that this probably needs to be discussed for a rename. The problem with Category:Shops is that shops ambiguous and has different meanings in different places. Category:Stores probably does not work either since we have a dab page at store which leads to retail store which is probably the best choice here even though retail store is a section redirect (just changed from a redirect to the whole article) to Retail. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Category:Shops; we use the word "store" much more often than not in category names, and more importantly, the articles that are contained in the head category are almost all "xxx store". Your definition of "store" is not the most common one; and we also park in a driveway and drive on a parkway but that doesn't really matter, does it?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better know as a warehouse. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we use both with shops generally being used for small stores. That takes it out of the realm of WP:ENGVAR. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that if you want to bring up Internet shopping most of the alternative names there contain store as part of the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an ENGVAR issue. All my local High Street retailers have shops, including the large supermarkets. As I said, this is a category where the natioanl category should be determined by local usage. In England, my pharmacist colloquially has a chemist's shop. If you told me that she had drug store, I would immediately know that you came from the other side of the Atlantic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the UK meaning has a different meaning on the other side of the pond. So that makes it ambiguous and hence unacceptable as a category name. Stores here are different then shops, which are really a subset. Yes they are related, but they have different meanings. That means ENGVAR is off the table since it does not work. Also remember that a shop can mean a place where 'things are manufactured or repaired', better know as a workshop. So yet another reason why this name does not work for retail stores! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. Seyasirt (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bollywood actors launched in 90's

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is probably a generally bad idea. There are no other "launched in" (whatever that means... in what, a rocket?) actor cats that I know of, and it seems like it could quickly get out of hand. --Geniac (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More LDS hymnwriters by nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. This and the American-only debate, even taken together, do not adequately converge on how to handle the nominated categories, so perhaps a discussion elsewhere is needed to settle the question. -Splash - tk 22:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"last rung rule" - More obscurantism from the darkest corners of the bureaucracy. How many people voted on that? A whopping five wikipedians, I expect.-MacRùsgail (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. See above for rationale. -Splash - tk 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Roman Catholics write hymns and hymnals in which they keep them. There is also much cross-pollination of hymnary between the various branches of Christianity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Child's Play characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to both parents, i.e Category:Horror film characters and Category:Child's Play (film series). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Child's Play characters to Category:Both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with no chance of expansion, given that several character articles have recently been deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you not put characters from a horror film in a category for horror film characters? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Historical societies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME to [[:Category:Historical societies of Foo, seems agreeable among the participants. -Splash - tk 22:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Historical societies of Argentina to an uncertain title
  • Propose renaming Category:Historical societies in Australia to an uncertain title
  • Propose renaming Category:Historical societies in Canada to an uncertain title
  • Propose renaming Category:United States historical societies to an uncertain title
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all good subdivisions of Category:Historical societies, but it's silly to have three different name formats. Let's pick one format and rename the others to match it. I'm partial to "Historical societies in COUNTRY", since that seems to be the most common way to do a by-country split, but I don't really care that much. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time for me to disagree with that being a parent category. Some historical societies are learned societies, such as the Filson Club in Louisville, Kentucky, USA, but most aren't; they're much more like garden clubs than groups of scholars. We should remove Category:Historical societies from Category:Learned societies and instead put the latter category onto articles about historical societies that really are learned societies. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Argentina, most historical societies are national institutes. --190.19.86.67 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Woman bishops

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 26. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge this newly-created (yesterday) category to the pre-existing Category:Female bishops, which was created in 2007.
The use of "female" rather than "woman" aligns with the parents Category:Female religious leaders and Category:Female Christian clergy and religious.
If the merger proceeds, Category:Woman bishops should be recreated as a ((category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zamboanga City

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The only argument to rename the categories became invalid, after the undiscussed move was reverted and the following RM was unsuccessful. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match corresponding main article. RioHondo (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Impact Wrestling

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling television programs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too small. Contains only two articles. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:General elections by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. Although there seems general agreement that something should be done, there is no clear direction on what it should be. -Splash - tk 22:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created to house parliamentary elections. These are variously referred to as general elections, legislative elections, parliamentary elections and federal elections. However, the first of these (the current name) is ambiguous, as in some countries "general election" refers to mixed elections - i.e. combined presidential and parliamentary elections (examples include Mozambique, the Philippines, Zimbabwe etc etc). Parliamentary elections is an unambiguous name, and hence is proposed as a preferable title. It also appears that Category:Parliamentary elections by country was the original category (it's two years older than the general election one), but was rather than bring it to CfD, an editor just emptied it into the General elections one.
One of the subcategories (Finnish general elections) is currently the subject of a CfD, but I will also nominate the following categories for renaming as part of this because the names of the categories do not match the names of the articles in them (the suggested names all match the article titles used for that country):
Number 57 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 01:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses to me and to MacRusgail make me wonder what precisely you're talking about. Unlike in the UK, legislative elections in federal countries sometimes involve elections for subnational legislators and other kinds of positions, and they're sometimes called "general" because they're not just subnational and not just national. They also don't necessarily involve the election of the executive. Meanwhile, I'm opposed to any renames here-and-now on the grounds that you propose, because that's really not what the beginning of the discussion began with. I might have a different reaction if you asked for this to be speedy-closed and promptly renominated everything individually. Finally, note that I have no opposition to renaming the Israeli thing, since that could rightfully be speedied. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would be entirely right if the articles in the categories in question were indeed general elections. However, they are not - the articles in the categories (e.g. French legislative election, 2012, Latvian parliamentary election, 2011, Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012 etc) are solely about elections to the respective parliaments. The categories have been misnamed for some unknown reason. Also, the subcategories have been part of the CfD since the very start, and were not added at a later point. Number 57 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the creator of these categories, and used the term "general election" in the Irish/UK sense to refer to an an election for all the members of a legislature (or a set tranche thereof) ... as opposed to a by-election, which is an exceptional process caused by one or more people vacating their seats.
At the time, I was unaware that in the USA and some other presidential systems, the term to refers to an election for two or more different types of office.
However, from a reading of the definitions, it seems that the UK/Irish terminology is just a subset of the American definition. The 3 examples cited by Number 57 are all general elections to a legislature; in each case, elections to the legislature are not held simultaneously with those to other offices. So the American definition has no applicability here ... and the categories are correctly named. I accept that there are problems of ambiguity, but that is a different matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the categories can be correctly named when they do not match the articles in them. Two of the above articles cannot be described as general elections in any sense of the term - France and Ukraine both have semi-presidential systems, and by definition, a general election in a country with a presidential system includes the election of the president - these articles do not, as they are solely about legislative elections. You may have a point with Latvia (as it is a parliamentary republic) but I would argue there is the potential for confusion with using the term "general" for Latvian elections given that the president is popularly elected. Number 57 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those elections are general in the sense of electing all Assembly members. Since those countries do not have any mixed elections, the American usage has no applicability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Some "general elections" are actually just parliamentary elections. I agree that truly general elections (where parliament and president are elected together) could perhaps have its own tree, but British general elections are parliamentary elections, and shouldn't really be in a separate category tree. Number 57 13:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an Amerocentric view. See the article general election, in which it is clearly explained that a general election in some systems is an election for all or most members of a legislature, as opposed to a by-election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I'm British, I don't see how I could have an Amerocentric viewpoint. And in reference to the general election article, it also points out that a general election in countries with a presidential system includes the election of the president. In the case of three of the categories nominated above (Brazil, France and Ukraine), the countries have a presidential or semi-presidential system. Number 57 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The head article would be better written if it referred to some countries with a presidential system, i.e. those with mixed elections. I think you are taking to narrow and prescriptive a view of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unhappy with "parliamentary elections", "legislative elections" would appear to be the answer, as it is a generic term for such entities. Number 57 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Legislative elections" is indeed better. But wouldn't that include by-elections? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More