< September 13 September 15 >

September 14

Category:Victims of Communist repressions in China

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) 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victims of Communist repressions in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. POV category with only one article in it (Falun Gong). The title is not neutral and barely grammatical, and its very premise can never be neutral. If this is a serious category, then where are Uyghurs, Tibetans, country people during the 1950s, everyone during the Cultural Revolution, all the individuals who were purged, all the rights lawyers and others who have been detained, etc? This category is clearly only here to slyly push a point. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAP--PCPP (talk) 13:36, 17 September 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:American influence in post-WWII Europe

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:American influence in post-World War II Europe. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American influence in post-WWII Europe to Category:American influence in post-World War II Europe
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand "WWII" to "World War II". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 14 September 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:Gladio

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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gladio to Category:Operation Gladio
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Operation Gladio. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 14 September 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:Christian genre types

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 as nominated. Creation of a subcategory for Category:Christian literary genres may be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christian genre types to Category:Christian genres
Nominator's rationale: Rename - "genre type" is redundant and ungrammatical. Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about girdle book, but the other two are certainly genres. If you think they are not genres, why is renaming to Category:Christian genres better than Category:Christian literary genres, when they are certainly all about books? I suggested Category:Types of Christian literature above, though girdle book just doesn't belong here, being a form of binding/covering for any type of book, though normally used for breviaries etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Category:Types of Christian literature or perhaps Category:Christian literary genres. Category:Christian multimedia, which also doesn't yet exist, might be a reasonable location for the girdles content. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 19 September 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:Worldcon Guests of Honor

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining. Being the guest of honor at a convention may be 'earned' by notable actions, but being the guest of honor is not in and of itself defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has already survived one attempt to delete, you really should indicate that, include a pointer, and notify previous participants in the discussion.Shsilver (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad you saw that since I was not aware that it had. Thanks for the pointer to the old discussion that was a no consensus and not a keep as your comment implies Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaiman's argument in its entirety is “It’s a big thing for me and it’s made a little bit stranger, and a little bit more exciting, and feels somehow slightly more of a responsibility, since it has been pointed out to me that I’m essentially the first member of my generation to be a Guest of Honour at Worldcon. … It definitely has significance for some people that I’m doing this. And it has significance for me, I think. It’s a wonderful and remarkable thing." Which is pretty much boilerplate that could be applied to any honorary degree or selection. As for being the focus of significant media attention, I'm not seeing it. Sure, it gets mentioned in stories that are about the convention but it's hardly the focus of attention that's being suggested here. Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaman's 'argument' is his expression of how much it meant to him. Many, many other Worldcon GoHs have said the same, his is simply the easiest to find. Having known some of them I can attest that they are not using boilerplate. This is important to them.
  • You made two errors in your search. One is that the media generally uses the proper name of the convention, the World Science Fiction Convention. The other is that if you focus the search on the last five years you'll see how much the media attention is growing.
  • A GoH Being mentioned in the press indicates that the press thinks that the GoH is of enough importance to be mentioned.
  • And measuring the importance of being a Guest of Honor at a Worldcon by only looking at the popular press drastically skews the results. A lot of the attention is from people within the community, who often then bring it to the attention of people outside the community. There are reasons that the GoH is listed on the first page of any Worldcon website.
  • Even if one chooses to ignore all of that the list is useful in and of itself. If you want to get an idea of who has contributed to the field of science fiction this is where you start. Kovar (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last point is a good suggestion, so I have added a head note, based on the text in the linked main Worldcon article. VJDocherty (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this; note that I was a Guest of Honor of the 2005 NASFiC (a slightly lesser honor than a Worldcon GoH), and it was a defining moment of my life. Kevin Standlee (talk) 18:48, 15 September 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:Survivors (aircraft)

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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Survivors (aircraft) to Category:Lists of surviving aircraft
Nominator's rationale: To follow suit with its article names (see also: Category_talk:Survivors_(aircraft)#Rename pages. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, these are valid points. I wonder whether the aquatic community have come up with a means of categorising aged but extant ships. Or the locomotive lobby for steam engines. Occuli (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Category:Preserved locomotives (some are in museums, others in occasional use). Would Category:Preserved aircraft do? Occuli (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, all three are already in a sub-category of Category:Individual aircraft which seems sufficient, but if editors more invested in the idea think there's a need for a separate "preserved" category that's fine. Otto4711 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rename does not accurately reflect the category's contents. Of the 22 articles in the category, 19 of them are lists and only three are individual aircraft. Otto4711 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 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:Haumeids

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: speedily deleted by kwami under C2. Further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 15#Category:Haumea. Jafeluv (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Haumeids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Content moved to page with correct name: Category: Haumea family. Iridia (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[wow, that was unintelligible.] The cat is now empty, so I'll delete. I'll leave it to Twiceuponatime to move Cat:Haumea. kwami (talk) 20:42, 14 September 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:21st-century male basketball centers

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 (category was empty at close). The other similar categories were not included in this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:21st-century male basketball centers to Category:21st-century basketball players
Nominator's rationale: no reason to cut by gender and by position. Many players change positions during their carreer. This inappropriate creation of categories happened in August. I am also suggseting we do the same for all other 21st century male basketball (position). Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 14 September 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:Bachman-Turner Overdrive

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 in this debate. As and when consensus on this issue is reached elsewhere these categories may be renominated. --Xdamrtalk 14:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bachman-Turner Overdrive to Category:Bachman–Turner Overdrive
Propose renaming Category:Bachman-Turner Overdrive albums to Category:Bachman–Turner Overdrive albums
Propose renaming Category:Bachman-Turner Overdrive members to Category:Bachman–Turner Overdrive members
Propose renaming Category:Bachman-Turner Overdrive songs to Category:Bachman–Turner Overdrive songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change the hyphen to a dash, in accordance with WP:ENDASH and to accompany the recently moved main article, Bachman–Turner Overdrive. The old name should remain as a category redirect to avoid creating duplicate categories. Jafeluv (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search using the hyphen version will find all versions (try eg searching in category space for for Russia-Senegal relations using the standard single-stroke keyboard hyphen). There might then be a need for a further click; not unduly onerous. Occuli (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a category redirect ensures that if a reader types in the hyphenated name, they'll be pointed out to the correct category, and if an editor uses the hyphenated category, a bot knows to fix the link to the correct spelling. I see no reason why this is different for categories than it is for articles. Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time I asked, there was no bot running for this task and when one had been running the bot would only work if the redirect was created by an admin. Has that changed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not qualified to speak as to whether editors do or do not type category names into the search box. I for one frequently type category names into the search box and frequently type category names when adding them to articles. No one other than you is suggesting that WP:DASH or any other part of the Manual of Style does not apply here. What is being suggested is that WP:DASH, like every other part of the MoS, is a guideline and as such is subject to occasional exceptions. Calling the suggestion that category names should be an exception to a guideline "disruptive" ignores this simple truth, is untrue, and is itself disruptive to the process. Otto4711 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I have no take on this CfD, I too frequently type the category names, for what it's worth. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. I often type them manually in article text as well. When searching for this kind of category, I would most likely use a hyphen, and go through a redirect. When adding the category into an article, I would use the dash, which is conveniently available as a shortcut on the edit page. Jafeluv (talk) 14:09, 16 September 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:Moldejazz

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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Moldejazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous cat serving only to link the event's logo and its main article (and until I added the article thirty seconds ago, it only contained the logo!) Can be recreated in the future if it's ever genuinely needed. Delete for now. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 14 September 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:Former drama schools

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:Defunct drama schools. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former drama schools to Category:Drama schools
Nominator's rationale: I seem to recall that we're not very big on "former" categories. Should we then upmerge to parent drama schools category, or move articles to the appropriate Drama school by country cat? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:06, 14 September 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:Second-party video game developers

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) 22:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Second-party video game developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The phrase "second-party" is undefined in this context, as evidenced by the fact that only one item appears in the category, and its placement is likely erroneous as well. Note the lack of any definition in Video game development parties and the conflicting opinions on its talk page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:58, 14 September 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:Russia–Senegal 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: Merge Category:Russia–Senegal relations to Category:Bilateral relations of Russia and Category:Bilateral relations of Senegal. --Xdamrtalk 14:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Russia–Senegal relations to Category:Bilateral relations of Russia and Category:Bilateral relations of Senegal
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. An unneeded level of categorization: contains nothing but main article Russia–Senegal relations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 14 September 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:Quebecois patriotic songs

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quebecois patriotic songs to Category:Quebec patriotic songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename per master category Category:Quebec songs and for the reasons stated below at the CfD for Quebec websites, namely, that the commonly used English adjective is "Quebec." Moreover, if the intention is to suggest patriotic songs strictly for and by Pure laine French Quebecers, with the use of Québécois (word), then it's a bit ironic in that the current title is anglicized, missing the accents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 14 September 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:Québécois websites

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:Quebec websites. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Québécois websites to Category:Quebec websites
Nominator's rationale: Rename Per master category Category:Quebec and WP:CANSTYLE#French_names which states that we use common English terms where they exist. List_of_adjectival_and_demonymic_forms_of_place_names#Canadian_provinces_and_territories clarifies that "Quebec" is indeed the correct adjectival form in English. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 14 September 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.

Danes to Danish 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: rename all. Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Danes" to "Danish people" and changing the format of some categories in order to standardize them and conform them with the parents Category:Danish people and Category:Danish people by ethnic or national origin. Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Fooian people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Danes" is shorter than "Danish people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category constistencies. See Polish, Swedish, Swiss and Finnish discussions for more information. See also earlier discussion which prompted this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 14 September 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.
More