< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:FIFA Club World Championship

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:FIFA Club World Championship to Category:FIFA Club World Cup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FIFA Club World Championship to Category:FIFA Club World Cup
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The competition is no longer known as the FIFA Club World Championship, and hasn't been since 2005. – PeeJay 23:10, 29 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:Our Gang directors

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Our Gang directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. List already exists at Our Gang personnel. Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 29 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:United States National Recording Registry

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:United States National Recording Registry to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States National Recording Registry to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Similar to this CFD for the Film Registry, to clarify that the category is for the recordings. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 29 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:Rutgers Law - Newark graduates

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. Kbdank71 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rutgers Law - Newark graduates to Category:Rutgers Law - Newark alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. Archfeminist (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single law school in the United States that is part of a greater university has it's own alumni category. --Archfeminist (talk) 22:53, 1 July 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:Bilateral relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Bilateral relations to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: Merge, I believe that all articles in this category need to be placed in their relevant categories, e.g. Australian-Maltese relations is placed in Category:Bilateral relations of Australia and Category: Bilateral relations of Malta, with each of those categories being placed in Category:Foreign relations of Australia and Category:Foreign relations of Malta, respectively. Category:Bilateral relations should only contain Category:Bilateral relations of Foo categories. In the event that there are categories in the format of Foo1-Foo2 relations, e.g. Category:Russia–Ukraine relations, the chief article for the category, in this example it is Russia–Ukraine relations, should only be placed in the Foo1-Foo2 relations category, with that category being place in Category:Bilateral relations of Foo1 and Category:Bilateral relations of Foo2, with the example, Russia–Ukraine relations having Category:Bilateral relations of Russia and Category:Bilateral relations of Ukraine removed, leaving only Category:Russia–Ukraine relations. Being placed here due to the expectation of meeting resistance from some, and to gather a wider concensus from the community --Россавиа Диалог 15:54, 29 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:Polish-Americans

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:Americans of Polish descent. As noted below, there are lots of recent precedents to make this change, and there is nothing new presented to make this the exception. BencherliteTalk 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Polish-Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It appears to be overcategorization and an undefining characteristic for many. More importantly, every time I see an edit regarding this category, it always seems to be a revert, whether putting it back in or taking it back out. It may be better just to not have it, since it seems to cause a lot of problems. Renaming to Category:Americans of Polish descent would fix the problems. Wizardman 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and how do you decide who is 'Polish American' and who is merely 'American of Polish descent'? half ancestry qualifies and less does not? the article page Polish Americans documents distinctiveness but category pages need to be clear, and not incorporate arbitrariness Mayumashu (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But so does 'Polish-American', or is the description Polish American wrong? Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 4 July 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:Diplomatic missions by host 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. Kbdank71 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by host country to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by host country
Nominator's rationale: After much disagreement over what does and doesn't belong in this category, I am bringing this here so tht the larger community can comment. I believe this category should be renamed to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by country with all of the actual lists (articles) in this category, e.g. Diplomatic missions in Russia to be moved to that category, with the actual categories, e.g Category:Diplomatic missions in Russia to remain in this category. This would solve an impasse as to whether Category:Diplomatic missions in Russia belongs in this category or not, and whether Diplomatic missions in Russia belongs in both Category:Diplomatic missions in Russia and Category:Diplomatic missions by host country, because as one can see that as of now, there is no way to easy navigate from Category:Diplomatic missions in Russia to say Category:Diplomatic missions in France. If there are better categorisation possibilities, we need to hear them. Россавиа Диалог 14:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, your example begs to be satirised. Seriously though, why should we make all these recategories to accomodate a rare example like you have cited? And anyway, to answer your question, a user would go Embassy of Brazil in Moscow -> Diplomatic missions of Brazil -> Category:Diplomatic missions by country -> Diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus -> Category:Diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus -> Embassy of Northern Cyprus in Ankara.
Instead of creating all those stubs and categories, and then expecting Wikipedia to accomodate your taxonomy, why don't you for once create some actual content? Kransky (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The route you explained I believe shows that you don't understand how categorisation works on WP, for one should not have to navigate by way of articles, categories are designed for that specific purpose, and this can be attested to by the above editors who have also seen a need to recategorise. --Россавиа Диалог 06:17, 7 July 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:Diplomatic missions 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. Kbdank71 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by country to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by country
Nominator's rationale: After much disagreement over what does and doesn't belong in this category, I am bringing this here so tht the larger community can comment. I believe this category should be renamed to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by country with all of the actual lists (articles) in this category, e.g. Diplomatic missions of France to be moved to that category, with the actual categories, e.g Category:Diplomatic missions of France to remain in this category. This would solve an impasse as to whether Category:Diplomatic missions of France belongs in this category or not, and whether Diplomatic missions of France belongs in both Category:Diplomatic missions of France and Category:Diplomatic missions by country, because as one can see that as of now, there is no way to easy navigate from Category:Diplomatic missions of France to say Category:Diplomatic missions of India. If there are better categorisation possibilities, we need to hear them. Россавиа Диалог 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists by receiving country are certainly needed too, possibly called "by destination". The article version that you referred to could have been useful, but I suspect the information on Russian missions in WP is less well developed than that of some other countries. For the United Kingdom, there are lists of ambassadors from Britain to each particular country, often stretching back into the 18th century or beyond. I think there may be articles in the embassies too, but the lists would be much better if they led to some specific article. That might be done as a dab link to the word "embassy". This is not an area that I am working on, but have occasionally dabbled with British embassies when producing biographies of those who were for a time members of Parliament. I suspect that giving the name of the current ambassador (as in the article version that you cited) would be a maintenance nightmare. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually now leaning towards Category:Lists of diplomatic missions for the lists, and Category:Diplomatics mission by sending country and Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country for the categories, country specific list and individual mission articles, as per usage of terms in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (what a hedonistic 6 weeks that convention must have been). In terms of the diplomatic missions of Russia article I developed, there are 2 main reasoning points for the inclusion of heads of mission in the list. Firstly, inline with official usage of the terms as per the Vienna Convention, a diplomatic mission refers to the official physical human representational presence of one country in another, and the mission is required to have a head of mission (an ambassador or high commissioner, or other as per articles in the Convention); they are an essential part of a diplomatic mission, and they are usually notable people. Secondly, as you pointed out, information on non-US/UK/Canadian/a few other countries missions on WP are sorely lacking, and their inclusion is aimed at helping to alleviate the bias that is somewhat endemic on WP; it will encourage further article development; it may take some time, but relevant redlinks are important. In regards to embassy article links, the linking to specific articles which can cover both the mission as covered by the definition of the V.C.D.R., and by what has also become another word for the mission chancery, is more evident in this list. In regards to maintenance of the heads of missions (ambassadors, etc), it is a really easy process to do, as most foreign ministries around the world maintain a diplomatic list, and make this list available. --Россавиа Диалог 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia - could we deal with one new idea at a time? I am not comfortable with including lists of ambassadors in articles about "diplomatic missions" (in an archaic sense a mission is the people, but under modern usage the term refers to the buildings and the institution of an embassy). As mentioned I strongly suggest ambassadors (or "Heads of Mission") are listed in separate articles. I also do not like cumbersome terms "receiving country" and "sending country". Kransky (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "sending State" and "receiving State" are terms used in the Vienna Conference on Diplomatic Relations. Kransky (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
maybe so, but 'country' is the convention/standard in WP, not 'state'. Hmains (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Russavia, but your List of diplomatic missions in Russia article is poorly designed. I would not use a table in the way you have - the photographs are too small in cells, and the repetition of countries with multiple missions in Russia across the same column looks awkward. Some ideas you have are good. This isn't one of them. Kransky (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion Kransky as we are all entitled to it, but my opinion is, is that the table is very well designed, but as List of Presidents of Venezuela, List of Prime Ministers of Canada, List of Governors of California, List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition, and a whole host of other featured lists show, the smaller images are OK and in some cases necessary, and don't retract from the ability of a list from reaching featured list status. With nearly 40 images so far in that article, and more to come due to myself 'recruiting' people in Moscow and Saint Petersburg to supply photos, such a setup is desired so that it is formatted, all available space on the page is used, and everything fits into place. You need to remember that lists exist for the main part for reaching articles, they don't exist just for a list of this and that. But again, this is best suited to a discussion on content, not on the categories. However, on categories, if you take a look at this article as of this edit, you will notice that the only way to use that article as it stood then to navigate to other articles was by the massive see also list - a well designed and formatted article wouldn't need that see also list, the links would be part of the article itself. --Россавиа Диалог 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might think your table is very well designed - just as all mothers love their babies. I just hope you are not going to be wasting your time because it looks like a nomination for AfD on the grounds that it duplicates Diplomatic missions of Russia. Kransky (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have said on a couple of previous occasions, go ahead and AfD anything you deem fit for AfD. --Россавиа Диалог 06:21, 7 July 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:Our Gang kids

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 as a list already exists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Our Gang kids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment read the article. This is a series of cinema movies ending in 1944; nothing to do with TV which hardly existed then. Hmains (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that it's not at all accurate. The Monty Python troupe membership was small and stable (more or less, Cleese did leave for the final series of the TV show). Kids were cycled in and out of the Our Gang films as desired by the producers. We don't characterize actors based on film series. Category:Thin Man film actors or Category:Jaws actors would be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 30 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:Songs about rainbows

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about rainbows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Why are there so many songs about rainbows? Well, there really aren't, and in fact none of the songs in this category are about rainbows at all. I Won't Last a Day Without You contains the lyric "when there's no getting over that rainbow," Over the Rainbow is about the land that's over the rainbow, The Rainbow Connection is about songs about rainbows (of which there are few apparently), Rainbow in the Dark is apparently about Ronnie James Dio's former band Rainbow and She's a Rainbow is about a woman. This additionally suffers from the vague inclusion criteria that has doomed so many other Songs about categories. Otto4711 (talk) 13:00, 29 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:Songs of World War I

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 Category:Songs of World War I as it is; rename Category:American Civil War songs to Category:Songs of the American Civil War. BencherliteTalk 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs of World War I to Category:to be determined by consensus
Propose renaming Category:American Civil War songs to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. These are examples of the two different naming formats under the parent Category:Songs by war. We should standardize. My preference is for Songs of (war name) because (War name) songs could be construed to include songs written about the war but not during the war. Otto4711 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking at the parent, a number of the Songs about foo categories would become ambiguous if renamed to Foo songs. Songs about California would become ambiguous if renamed to California songs for instance. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry, I should have made it explicit that this is a test case. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 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:Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province

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 the two empties, rename the other. Kbdank71 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province to Category:Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)
Propose renaming Category:Cities in Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province to Category:Cities in Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)
Propose renaming Category:People from Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province to Category:People from Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match name of article (Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)) which was renamed through RM. Failed speedy rename, but two of these were already renamed before the renaming admin noticed the objection, so I intend this discussion to stand for all three. Pfainuk talk 09:21, 29 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:Wind power stations

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. BencherliteTalk 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: To be in line with general practice, I propose to merge Category:Wind power stations by country to Category:Wind farms by country and Category:Wind power stations in Canada to Category:Wind farms in Canada, and to rename Category:Wind power stations in Hong Kong to be Category:Wind farms in Hong Kong. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 29 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:Songs about bananas

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about bananas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable trait. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 29 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:Untitled Albums

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Untitled Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. At the very least, fix the capitalization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 29 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:Buddhism and current issues

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:Buddhist views. BencherliteTalk 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buddhism and current issues to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: This name is hopelessly vague; apparently the West and women are current issues (?). Entries seem to be a mish-mash of political theories (Buddhist anarchism and Buddhist economics), articles related to women (Ordination of women and Women as theological figures, note also that these are not specifically articles about Buddhism) and 20th/21st century institutions (International Congress on Buddhist Women's Role in the Sangha and World Buddhist Forum.) My gut reaction is to delete this altogether since I cannot figure out any consistent rationale for why an article is included in this, but if someone else can, please propose a more intelligible name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Views? Well, what is "views by religion?" This category seems like another hodge-podge of social issues, political ideologies, identity politics, and almost anything that has to do with a religion and something else. This category is itself hopelessly vague - aren't Christian philosophies "Christian viewpoints?" Don't Bahá'í texts express "Bahá'í teachings?" Other than articles on places or biographies, very little under the main heading of any religious category couldn't fit this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 29 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.
More