< September 17 September 19 >

September 18

Category:Quad Band GSM phones

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. Kbdank71 16:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quad Band GSM phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pointless category. Almost all GSM phones on the market are quad-band nowadays. Why is this category useful? ANDROS1337 00:00, 19 September 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:Substance-related disorders

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 on 25th. Kbdank71 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substance-related disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Jamaican country music songwriters

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. Kbdank71 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Jamaican country music songwriters to Category:Country music songwriters
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow categorization; country music isn't very popular in Jamaica, mon, so I don't think there'll be any chance of expansion here. Just like Kostas is the only Greek country songwriter, I imagine that William Layton Nelson is the only Jamaican one. Note that the parent category is up for a renaming, too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:44, 18 September 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:Country music songwriters

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. Kbdank71 16:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Country music songwriters to Category:Country songwriters
Category:English country music songwriters to Category:English country songwriters
Nominator's rationale: All other songwriter cats are "foo" songwriters, not "foo music" songwriters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:41, 18 September 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:Austria-Hungary

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. Kbdank71 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Austria-Hungary to Category:Austria–Hungary
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per WP:DASH it should be an en-dash (–) and not a hyphen (-) between Austria and Hungary. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 13#Bilateral relations where proper dashes were passed. Note that Austro-Hungarian should not be converted to en-dash. Renata (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other categories affected:

complete list
(hyphen to ndash)
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:West End plays

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. Kbdank71 16:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:West End plays to Category:London West End plays
Nominator's rationale: for consistency...see category:London West End musicals emerson7 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there are literally hundreds of west end plays that are appropriate for this category...it needs only to be populated. i personally don't care about the permutation...only that they be consistent. --emerson7 13:48, 22 September 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:Maties

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 on 25th. Kbdank71 16:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Maties to Category:Stellenbosch University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename per usual naming conventions for Universities. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:57, 18 September 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:History of Freemasonry 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: upmerge. Only two cats at this point, history of freemasonry in Belgium and in France. Recreation permissible if other subcats are created. Kbdank71 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of Freemasonry by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Definite overcatting - lack of expandability aside, when article titles are already "History of Freemasonry in (country)", it is unnecessary to then put it in a category of that name. MSJapan (talk) 16:24, 18 September 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:History of Freemasonry

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, it's been populated further. Kbdank71 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcatting. This, and its subcat (which is also CFDed) were created for the benefit of one article. When there is sufficient need for such a category, it can be recreated, but it is unnecessary now. MSJapan (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've been through this BS previously with MSJapan. The last time we dealt with Freemasonry categories (a few months back) I distinctly recall explaining to MSJapan that it was not okay to depopulate categories prior to bringing them to CFD. So there's really no excuse for doing it again. Cgingold (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a 'by country/region' category; and there is already Category:Freemasonry by country which you might like to cfd while we are at it (I would probably support an upmerge of that). Occuli (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... what "history by country" articles? That is the point of the nomination... there are no "history by country" articles. Nor does the Freemasonry Project plan to create any since reliable secondary sources don't exist for most countries. And yes, we should cfd Category:Freemasonry by country or change it to Category:Freemasonry by region since we could probably merge the existing articles into one Freemasonry in Europe article. I do wish people would consult with the wikiproject before they start creating categories for the articles within it. Also, if we are not supposed to delete articles from their current categories until this cfd is over, may I ask that we not create additional ones or tie things to other categories and thus confuse the issue further? Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on MSJapan's comment in the related CFD, "article titles are already "History of Freemasonry in (country)". But since the category was depopulated there's no easy way to verify what s/he was referring to. I did manage to find History of Freemasonry in Belgium -- and I would love to know if there are others. As to adding new parent cats, there's nothing in the least wrong with doing that, Blueboar -- I've done it many times, whenever there's good reason to do so. Cgingold (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, when I said there was just the one, I meant it. The article author basically created a category for his one article on Belgium, and then created another category in which to put his first category. That's egregiously excessive. We can't do History of Freemasonry by country, because it's impossible - many countries have multiple active branches that have nothing to do with one another, so we at best end up with an NPOV problem because we're ignoring one or more branches. History of Freemasonry is more properly tied to the Grand Lodges/Orients/etc. that govern Freemasonry in their jurisdiction. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator, can I just add that I am hoping to add / improve Freemasonry in France / History of Freemasonry in France (from translating French Wikipedia), Freemasonry in Germany / History of Freemasonry in Germany etc., so I can put minds at rest that it will forever remain a 'one-article-category'. And as for whether to sort Masonic history by branch or by country, I think Wikipedia can bear treatment of it in both ways. And finally, thank you for a free and healthy debate (though let's stick to the utility or not of the categories and keep it free of POV on the notability or not Masonic history).Neddyseagoon - talk 11:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment... I have to ask that people stop adding inappropriate articles to the category while the cfd is ongoing... I have removed three articles that were just added, none of which deal with an aspect of Masonic history. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly in order to add articles (but not remove articles) during a cfd - indeed previous cfd closers have urged those who say 'populate' to do some populating. There seems to be some WP:OWN going on here. Occuli (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - if articles are appropriate it is encouraged to add them. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 19 September 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:Travis

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 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Travis to Category:Travis (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:55, 18 September 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:Athletics

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:Athletics (track and field). Kbdank71 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Athletics to Category:Track and field athletics (and all subcats in the obvious way—some subcats do not contain the word athletics or athletes, or are already disambiguated, and therefore do not need modification).
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word athletics is problematic. In the States it means competitive sport in general, or sometimes even just strenuous physical activity in general (note that the former meaning is closer to the word's etymology than the track-specific meaning is). The article track and field athletics, which used to be called simply athletics, had a long discussion about this and settled on this name, which I thought was a fine compromise.
The usual principle at WP:ENGVAR is that articles, when not specific to a nation or culture, keep their original variety of English, and this is usually a good principle. But when, as in the current case, a large fraction of English speakers will simply not understand what is intended, some modification is necessary. The name track and field athletics, even if not the most common name among any set of English speakers, will at least be understood by all of them. Trovatore (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be better. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm -- the article association football used to be at football (soccer), and I think the current naming is more elegant. I don't buy the argument about international governing bodies; they can call themselves anything they want even if it conflicts with some other usage that we at WP will want to recognize. For example the International Hockey Federation is the governing body of field hockey only, but I hope everyone understands that limiting the use of unmodified hockey, at WP, to field hockey, is a non-starter. However, the disambiguation style foo (bar) where bar is, in context, a synonym of foo, is not so good; if there's a reasonable way around it it should be taken. --Trovatore (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only now I noticed that the athletics article has been renamed, modeled on the line of reasoning for "Association football": 1) can't call it "Football" - ambiguous, 2) can't call it "Soccer" - Americanism, too informal, whatever, 3) can't call it "Football (soccer)" because soccer is not a disambiguation context for football, 4) must call it something else then. And that "something else" is "Association football", or, in our case, "Track and field athletics" - two terms nobody actually uses. If "Athletics" needs to be disambiguated, I'd support only "Athletics (track and field)" - and it would also be a good idea to rename the main article back to its former name. GregorB (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the choices are between unmodified athletics and disambiguated athletics (track and field), I'd certainly go with athletics (track and field), which definitely addresses my main concern here. I just think track and field athletics is a little more graceful. But if it's indeed the case that no one actually uses the term (a point I can neither confirm nor refute) then I agree that that's a serious objection to that formulation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really say no one uses "track and field athletics" - it's just that it's rather unusual. Google test says "track and field" beats it 70-1, and "athletics" beats it 380-1. Incidentally, as far as Britannica is concerned, it's just athletics. GregorB (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curiosity: How did you determine how many of the Google hits for "athletics" were about the sense of the word under discussion, rather than for competitive physical sport? (Aside: Yes, of course Britannica uses British English; it's a British institution. At WP on the other hand we have to find occasionally awkward compromises between varieties of English.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assumed that (more or less) all occurrences of "athletics" refer to "track and field", and not other sports. Could be 90% or so, it's hard to say. But even if it's just 50%, the usage would be still 190-1 against "track and field athletics". Note that the same does not apply to "athlete", where the usage is much more divided (and hence ambiguous), so I believe the case for renaming Category:Athletes is even stronger. GregorB (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that athlete, restricted in this way, is even more problematic than restricting athletics, but I think you underestimate the diffusion of the North American sense of the latter.
Let me put it this way: If you told an American that Michael Phelps and Lance Armstrong aren't athletes, you'd get a blank stare, or your listener would assume you were picking a fight. The apparent plain meaning of your words would seem so out of bounds that the possibility they were meant literally would simply not be considered.
On the other hand, if you said cycling and swimming aren't athletics, you'd get a similar response, but perhaps slightly milder. Slightly. Assuming your listener weren't a swimmer or a cyclist. --Trovatore (talk) 06:47, 24 September 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:Marquesses of Wharton

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: upmerge (wait, any... oh, never mind, these are brits). Kbdank71 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marquesses of Wharton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Propose upmerge into parent Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Great Britain. This is the only subcategory, and only contains one article. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I agree, but when there are many holders with their own articles (Dukes of Norfolk or Devonshire, Marquesses of Salisbury etc) a sub-cat is justified on normal categorization principles just to reduce clutter in the main category, I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 21 September 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:Lotus drivers

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/close as already merged (wait, any Australian drivers? Someone else may want to "rename per nom") . Kbdank71 15:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lotus drivers to Category:Lotus Formula One drivers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other members of Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams, e.g. Category:Ferrari Formula One drivers, Category:Alfa Romeo Formula One drivers, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 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:Crime in Australia by state

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. I'll assume that the two members of the WP:AWNB below are sufficient for this rename. If any members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria, Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Territory, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian crime (none of which seem to have been notified, but have categories that would be affected) would like to comment so as to get a stronger consensus (I've been told that 4 people are "weak consensus"), I'll reopen the discussion. Kbdank71 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Crime in Australia by state to Category:Crime in Australia by state or territory
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since creation, Category:Crime in the Northern Territory and Category:Crime in the Australian Capital Territory have been added to accompany the "by state" subcategories. NT and ACT are not states, of course. Propose using similar name format that is used for various categories, such as Category:Organisations based in Australia by state or territory. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 18 September 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