< November 25	November 27 >

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. Consensus doesn't always follow logic. Now if you wanted to bring up for renaming ALL of the "trophies and awards" cats, you might get more traction. Kbdank71 16:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Association football trophies and awards to Category:Association football awards and trophies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It makes more sense for the elements of the category name to be put in alphabetical order. – PeeJay 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – PeeJay 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why? It currently fits the text in the category and the name of several sub-categories. I suggest leave well alone here. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-categories can be renamed based on the result of this discussion. Anyway, say "trophies and awards" to yourself and tell me it doesn't sound a little discordant. – PeeJay 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We just dealt with this wording a few months ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_11#Awards_and_trophies.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No new evidence or rationale since the discussion a few months ago, other than the nom's subjective preference for one word order rather than another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I know this page (WP:TITLE) refers to article titles and not category titles, but the section "Titles containing 'and'" states that in cases where neither concept separated by the 'and' can be considered more commonly encountered, the concepts should be ordered alphabetically. Hence, by that logic, the title of this category should be "Association football awards and trophies". – PeeJay 19:21, 3 December 2010 (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: no consensus on category, but put album article into Category:To My Surprise albums.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:To My Surprise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only contains three articles, all of which are navigable easily from one another. The album should be recategorized in Category:To My Surprise albums, as there is a long precedent of categories for artists that only have one album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category, and recat album. Tassedethe (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No point in putting one article in a new category, especially since there will never be any other albums. Keeping everything categorized under the band category is fine. --Kbdank71 16:16, 10 December 2010 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bishops by city to Category:Bishops by diocese

Nominator's rationale: This category reflects the ancient convention of naming a diocese after its principal city and episcopal seat. In practice not all dioceses are so named: most ECUSA dioceses are named after states or parts thereof, and there are some Church of England and Roman Catholic examples encompassing more than one place in their names (e.g. Diocese of Bath and Wells). Even if dioceses from two churches happen to associate to the same city there is a very good chance that they cover substantially different areas. It makes far more sense to identify these bishops as of dioceses rather than of cities. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Seems a sensible way to proceed. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The city names are replete with anachronisms: places that were important in the days of the Roman Empire are no more than rubble heaps today. I doubt that St. Paul would today address an epistle to the goats of Phillipi (as they are the only current residents). Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Note that Catholic Russian dioceses are (deliberately) not named after cities, so the new one should be more inclusive. May be non-Catholic ones with the same situation. Student7 (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Speedway former venues to Category:Defunct speedway venues

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While there is still some debate about whether "Former" or "Defunct" should be used (and either will do here, though the overwhelming majority of similar cats use "defunct", by a factor of 70 to 4), whichever adjective is used needs to go before the sport name! Grutness...wha? 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't this be Category:Defunct speedways (and the parent Category:Speedways)? "Speedway venues" sounds distinctly redundant. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the same sense that talking about "railway tracks" is redundant. Speedway is the usual name for the sport - it also refers to one type of racing venue; speedway (the sport) may be raced on specific oval speedway tracks (sometimes, but not that commonly, known as speedways) or on street or road circuits. Category:Speedway venues includes both dedicated ovals and to temporary or permanent street or road circuits, so the current naming scheme is more all-encompassing. It is a little confusing, but much less so that simply referring to speedway (the sport) and speedways (the venues). Grutness...wha? 11:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I'd never known there was a sport called "Speedway" - I'd only known the term in the context of the name for a motorsports venue, i.e., Daytona International Speedway. Defunct speedway venues seems slightly ambigious though - is it defunct venues for Speedway or defunct Speedways (motorsports venues)? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I too would support Category:Defunct speedways. If you take a look at the parent article Motorcycle speedway there is not one single use of the term speedways, plural, in the text. The sport is called "speedway," singular only, and so there is no need to disambiguate, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming per SiM - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to Category:Defunct speedway venues to match the parent (Category:Speedway venues) --Kbdank71 16:13, 10 December 2010 (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: delete. Kbdank71 16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Prophets in Mandaeism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_28#Category:Manifestations_of_God_in_the_Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_Faith. This grouping is far more obscure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I expect that a list would be far more appropriate for this. These entries are not first and foremost Mandaeian prophets. Imagine if we had a category for "prophets in FOO" for every sect or group—those prominent prophets in the Bible would be cluttered quickly with these types of categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (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. Kbdank71 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:People from Queensbury to Category:People from Queensbury, West Yorkshire

Nominator's rationale: To match head article Queensbury, West Yorkshire and to disambiguate from Category:People from Queensbury, New York BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to disambiguate and match main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (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, no objection noted. Kbdank71 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Olympic Youth Games medal tables to Category:Youth Olympic Games medal tables

Nominator's rationale: "Olympic Youth Games" is a misnomer; the correct name is "Youth Olympic Games". Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 November 2010 (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: merge the three restaurant categories into Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants; rename Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants and chefs to Category:Michelin Guide starred chefs and purge all restaurants from it, putting them into Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants as needed. The category system cannot handle an ephemeral rating system. It can only say, "This happened at some time." So all restaurants and chefs that have been given stars at any point can go into these two new categories, without concern about what number of stars these honorees gain.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants and chefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Michelin Guide one starred restaurants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Michelin Guide two starred restaurants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Michelin Guide three starred restaurants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories seem to me to be overcategorization for a few reasons found in the guidelines. First, these are essentially awards, and the normal thing to do with award recipients is not to categorize by the award, but rather to create lists. Second, this is similar to the categorization by pre-existing published lists, similar to categorizing because a restaurant made a magazine's "top 50 restaurants" list. I know getting a star from Michelin is a significant honour—it's definitely worth being mentioned in the article about the chef or restaurant, I just don't think it's the type of thing WP should be categorizing by. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – right on cue (see below) we have an unwieldy combination of people and restaurants, produced by earlier cfd. WP does categorise (exactly) by things which are 'definitely worth being mentioned in the article'. Personally I think there should be Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants, subcat of Category:Restaurants, Category:Michelin Guide starred chefs, subcat of Category:Chefs, the word 'current' should be dropped from the description and no attempt should be made with 1, 2 and 3 stars. And there should be Category:Michelin Guide to house these entities. Occuli (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP does categorize by things definitely worth mentioning in an article, but not by everything definitely worth mentioning in an article. There are plenty of things worth mentioning in an article that would not make decent categories. The only debate is which side of the line things fall within. If these are kept, I agree that you proposed scheme makes far more sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The category specifically says current guide listings. I could support a category of those who were ever listed, but reproducing the listings of the current guide is out of our purview. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/modify as recommended by Occuli above. The categories directly relate to the notability of many of the entries, and we definitely categorize by things that contribute to notability. I agree with upmerging the star count cats. In reading the 2007 CfD, it is obvious that this is a defining characteristic, and does aid in seperating the notable from the non-notable. I also agree with eliminating the "current" requirement from inclusion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/resort all to Category:Chefs who are current and former holders of Michelin stars and Category:Restaurants which are current and former holders Michelin stars, as the Michelin star is a notable and prestigious award in the culinary world; and a defining characteristic, since it is always used to define restaurants and chefs that have held a star, even after its loss, or the death/closure of the holder. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother with the "current and former" language? Aren't categories always assumed to include "current and former" unless they state otherwise? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify. A problem here is that these awards can be fleeting. If a chef arrives at a restaurant and that restaurant gets a star, what does that mean over the long term? Do we remove the category when the chef leaves? What happens when the restaurant receives one star the first year, three stars the second and two stars the third? Does it stay in all three categories? This is simply too complex for the category system to address. With a list, you can source the information and show the periods of time that it had a specific rating. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (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: withdrawn, but renaming to Category:High-test peroxide to match High-test peroxide. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High test peroxide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems to be a bit of a "catchall" category, combining HTP-powered rocket engines, aircraft using them, and accidents caused by HTP. Doesn't seem to be an appreciably useful category. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two aircraft, two submarines, six rockets. Potential for a load more too. All of these have a crucial relationship with HTP. HTP is a notable subject and has already demonstrated its notability independent of hydrogen peroxide. There is no reason to delete this group. Nor is there any scope to rename this cat as "HTP-powered rockets" or somesuch (half of them aren't).

WP will no doubt advocate some unworkable compromise of "HTP-powered rocket, aircraft and undersea vehicles" instead, that will manage to be inaccurate, exclude some like T-Stoff that ought to be included, and unwieldy, all in one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – the usual procedure is to insist upon tightly defined subcats of a catch-all category like this. Otherwise we get a duplicate of 'what links here'. Editors are free to come up with wieldy, accurate and inclusive names. Occuli (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case example of that would be Commons:Category:British Rail Class 950, where we now have seven categories to describe one train.

In this case, we'd need about five categories:

• Category:HTP-powered rocket engines
• Category:HTP-powered rockets
• Category:HTP-powered aircraft
• Category:HTP-powered undersea vehicles (not even submarines, because some are submarines, one's a torpedo accident)
• Category:HTP fuels

And we'd presumably still need Category:High test peroxide to tie the lot together, maybe as one of those arbitrary meta-categories with nothing in it, just to make browse navigation more long-winded.

There are currently 10 articles in here, all of which have a strong relationship with HTP, but don't have a comparably strong relationship at a more detailed level. It isn't broke. There aren't any obvious better fixes either. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I do see your point. I'm willing to withdraw the nom, considering that. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:38, 26 November 2010 (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.