August 10
Category:Songs overdubbed as duets
- 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. --Xdamrtalk 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Songs overdubbed as duets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this is a truly defining criterion. For instance, the overdubbed version of "When You Say Nothing at All" is an unofficial remix made by a DJ and was never officially released. Other duets are often recorded in different studios and mixed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm - on the one hand I tend to agree with the nominator that in general this is not defining of the song. But in some cases, e.g. Unforgettable (song), it's likely that this is defining of the song. I haven't reviewed all of the articles so I don't know if there are enough such songs to warrant a separate category. If so, the category should be renamed and restricted to songs along the same lines. Not sure what the best name would be. Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through the articles it doesn't look to me like this is a defining characteristic for the other songs so delete as a small category with little or no growth potential along with being trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename The category sounds as if it is about recorded songs. A song can be performed in many ways. I do not have an obvious rename target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Prune The characteristic is defining for many of these songs. There certainly are some overdubbed duets included here where the characteristic is not defining and this should be addressed at the article level. Alansohn (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom with no objection to the creation of a new category that restricts the contents to some defining characteristic and a new name that reflects this. I think the discussion points out the issues with this category. I acknowledge that renaming is needed, but I'm not convinced that there will be enough for a category after a prune as suggested. So deleting as the start of a cleanup makes the most sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2009 (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:Memorial Days
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Memorial Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous category already covered by Category:Remembrance days. Gilliam (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (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 Category:Northern Irish association football clubs to Category:Northern Irish football clubs.
- Rename to follow conventional form of parent - Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country. No consensus on the elimination of 'Northern Irish' as part of the category name.
- Whether one agrees with the movement to eliminate 'Northern Irish' or not, the January 7th closure was clear in that it created no precedent viz the wholesale elimination of the term as part of category names. That decision was specific to the area of people-by-nationality and there appears to be little consensus to extend it.
- --Xdamrtalk 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish association football clubs to Category:Association football clubs of Northern Ireland
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent category and precendent set in January and throughout this year. See multiple discussions here, here and here. Also includes all sub categories.
- Rename 'Northern Irish XXXs' to 'XXXs in/of Northern Ireland' using 'in' or 'of' as decided elsewhere. Occuli (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree as per several previous discussions lately. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree as no good reason has been given for the change and the title should remain for consistency. This appears to be part of a POV campaign against the term Northern Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Less POV. BigDunc 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The term is not "POV" in the first place. Mooretwin (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, it is POV, politically loaded, contentious and can to many in Northern Ireland be considered highly offensive. Details of this outlined in the below links.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not POV and the links don't demonstrate that it is. Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes it is. Imposing an alleged nationallity on people who do not consider themselves to be Northern Irish is not what we do, ...of Northern Ireland is neutral and makes no assumption. BigDunc 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No-one's "imposing" any "nationallity", alleged or otherwise on anyone. Mooretwin (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree make perfect sense. --Domer48'fenian' 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is part of a political campaign by Irish-republican editors, as evidenced by those editors who have contributed here. Mooretwin (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree unless all similar categories in the parent Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country are also renamed. I note that only 9 of those 201 categories are named something like "Football clubs in nation", and to be honest, I prefer those names to the usual "Demonym football clubs" category names. Category:Sammarinese football clubs is much less useful than Category:Football clubs in San Marino, for example. However, I would prefer to see a concerted effort to rename all these categories, for consistency sake, rather than "cherry-picking" this one in particular, with the political overtones that this nomination seems to carry. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, as discussed in the CfD's linked, Northern Ireland is a special case. There is no such nationality as "Northern Irish" either legally or ethnically. The people of Northern Ireland do not generally consider themselves "Northern Irish" - and the term is politically loaded, highly POV and can be offensive as it can imply political or sectarian allegiance. The use of "from Northern Ireland" eliminates that.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the existence or otherwise of a Northern Irish "nationality" is irrelevant; the link merely demonstrates that most people's preferred identity is British or Irish - it does not demonstrate any rejection of Northern Irish; the link is to a footnote giving the opinion of a single author who amusingly indicates in the footnote his own ignorance (in relation to British nationality). Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, its a highly contencious description to enforce on anyone and any institution relating to Northern Ireland. It is purposefully never used in the Good Friday Agreement for that very reason. To decribe an authors analysis as an indication of "his own ignorance" just proves you care little for WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV and only subscribe you your own POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not "highly contencious [sic]". It's not being "enforced" on anyone. My mention of the author's ignorance proves nothing other than I was able to identify that the single author whom you rely on was ignorant about British nationality and citizenship. Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rename It is one thing to claim that 'of course Wikipedia Category names = Legal nationalities, and therefore people placed within these Categories will be offended', and therefore justify borking the whole naming convention system just for this single use, throwing out one of the only reasons the structure exists (and bizarrly, it still remains as a child Category of the People by Nationality tree), it is quite another to start claiming that nationality can be conferred to inanimate objects such as football clubs. Nobody should be voting 'per precedent' here at all, because the people by nationality discussion closure was explicit - it confers no precedent. My view on standardisation is unchanged from the People debate, it should be the same as whatever is used as the standard, be that -ish or -of/in, and if there is no standard, create one by consensus, instead of filing single purpose requests. MickMacNee (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, but its not just for individuals that the term is avoid - pretty much every instituation in Northern Ireland avoids the term.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not true. Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, are you talking to Mick or me? Whats "not true".--Vintagekits (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, though not from a political point of view (frankly I don't see what the fuss is about, but then again I'm an outsider looking in). I'm agreeing with this from a logical point of view - as Andrwsc has already stated, it makes more sense to list clubs by their actual location rather than their 'nationality'. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - There's nothing wrong with the term "Northern Irish". – PeeJay 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, whats wrong with it is that it is not a term used by the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to describe themselves, it is avoided by all instituations in Northern Ireland, its not a legal nationality, its not an ethnic group, it is POV and politically loaded and "from Northern Ireland" is a far more accurate and less POV term - but apart from that, yeah there is nothing wrong with it.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, I don't know any Northern Irish people so I don't know how they would identify themselves, but the term is used by a very large majority of the rest of the population of this planet, so why should we pander to you over something this petty? – PeeJay 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? For the FIVE reasons I have outlined above.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If your reasons were any good, I wouldn't be arguing with you over them. Almost the entire world uses the term "Northern Irish", so why shouldn't we (and try to keep your arguments to a global scale, not just within your own tiny sphere)? – PeeJay 08:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well what I have done it provide evidence that it is politically loaded and not used in Northern Ireland and provided a "0 loss" alternative - you have just said "the world use it" - which is completely WP:OR. Anyway - I will let other decide.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, but under the caveat that every other "nationality" should also be changed. (ie Scottish -> from Scotland, Italian -> from Italy, etc.) Otherwise it looks like Northern Ireland is being singled out for whatever political motivation. I think it makes sense because there are some clubs who are based in a certain territory but would describe themselves as being of another country (eg Berwick Rangers are based in England, but would perhaps describe themselves as Scottish given the league they play in). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Northern Irish football clubs to match corresponding subcats in the parent Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country, which uses "Fooish football clubs" as a standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (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:Skitzo Metal 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: Keep until resolution of parent article Afd. May be re-nominated on conclusion of that debate. --Xdamrtalk 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Skitzo Metal albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable band. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2009 (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:Erupting volcanos
- 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:
- --Xdamrtalk 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Erupting volcanos to Category:Active volcanoes
- Suggest merging/renaming Category:Erupting volcanos in the Philippines and Category:Active volcanoes in the Philippines to Category:Active volcanoes of the Philippines
- Suggest renaming Category:Erupting volcanos in Indonesia to Category:Active volcanoes of Indonesia
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Defined as "Volcanos which are currently erupting, or have erupted in the last 12 months, or which are giving indications they may erupt in the immediate or near future." These are recently-created "current"-type categories that requires updating (and some speculation, in the case of "may erupt") based on the current eruption status of a volcano. Categories of these types that measure a current status are generally avoided. Suggest merging to Category:Active volcanoes and subcategories. Note that as a natural landform, naming conventions state that categories for volcanoes should use the form "of FOO", not "in FOO". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge articles into Category:Active volcanoes and delete without leaving a redirect. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as Debresser. I thought the usual classification split them into active, dormant and extinct. Active is probably much wider than the present subject, covering those that have minor eruptions daily to those that have not erucpted for perhpas half a century. I am not a geologist. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator. Would it be a good idea to create redirects from Category:Active volcanos and similar titles? That's a common alternative spelling for the plural. Jafeluv (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Merges to more effectively group under the standards described at the Volcano parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2009 (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:Ethiopian inspirational people
- 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. --Xdamrtalk 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Ethiopian inspirational people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective, POV category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it is indeed subjective and POV. Occuli (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, and because has only 1 article. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2009 (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:Documentary television series in Canada
- 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, for now—for consistency to current convention. This is without prejudice to a future nomination to change the convention of all of these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Documentary television series in Canada to Category:Canadian documentary television series
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to match other country categories in Category:Documentary television series by country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure, I originally created this — but I did so in 2005, when there wasn't a firm naming convention in place. Support the rename; I've actually done the exact same move on a couple of its sibling categories within the past couple of days. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. I would rather see these categories renamed in the opposite direction. For example, instead of "Demonym documentary television series", I think "Documentary television series in nation" are clearer names. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Rename as Suggested The category is intended to include documentary television series produced in Canada. The use of "in" as part of the current name could represent such series made in Canada or such series shown in Canada. While the proposed target does capture this, the demonym-based standard of "Fooish documentary television series" only creates more confusion overall. Category:Documentary television series by country, includes such entries as Category:German documentary television series, which could be documentary television series from Germany or such series produced in the German language, a problem that would be even more problematic once the Category:Spanish documentary television series is inevitably created. While I acknowledge that this isn't the best category to address this issue, the likelihood of confusion would be alleviated by renaming the other categories to fit the "of Foo" format by nation and I would prefer a rename here to Category:Documentary television series from Canada (or some version thereof that addresses the problematic "in"). Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - per nom, every sibling category uses the "Fooian doc TV series" formulation so for now change this to match as this reflects how media by country of origin is categorized. If there is disagreement over this format then a broad nomination encompassing not only this category set but the many other category sets that use the same formulation (films, books, other TV series, plays, etc.) would be needed. Otto4711 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2009 (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.