August 2
Category:Advertisements
- 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 merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Advertisements to Category:Advertising
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Technical nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as is. Category:Advertisements is a proper subcategory of Category:Advertising so I made it so. Advertisements are the specific products/examplies of the process of advertising. Quite different. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for notable examples of advertising. It's like the "Individual foo" distinguished from the species within Organisms. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2011 (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:B-side 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:B-side songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This seems like a trivial association between these songs rather than a defining characteristic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure here. B sided songs that later charted may well be notable. So is a rename in order? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But then they'd be notable as singles, and thus still wouldn't need this category. Bearcat (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - B-side songs are often mentioned with this as a defining characteristics on radio or as part of b-side album collections. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - irrelevant in this digital era, but very relevant for the 45 rpm era. Most b-side songs aren't notable enough for an article, this cat captures those songs which are. The-Pope (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Two songs that I recall as being notable b-sides are Erotic City and Pink Cadillac (song). Then there are songs like For You Blue and Isn't It a Pity, which as B-sides still get shared #1 credit on the Billboard Hot 100 historic charts. The problem is that songs in this category currently include those by Paul McCartney, The Beach Boys, and others when there seemed to be an attempt to have an article for every song by those artists. Those songs, which aren't particularly notable period, much less as b-sides, should be redirected or at least not be in this category unless they have notability as a b-side. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2011 (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:Temples around Thanjavur, Kumbakonam
- 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 to Category:Hindu temples in Thanjavur district and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Temples around Thanjavur, Kumbakonam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Vague category. Thanjavur and Kumbakonam are towns, 40 kilometres apart. Besides what does the creator mean by "around". What does the creator consider the places "around" Thanjavur or Kumbakonam? The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 12:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete impossibly definable criterionCurb Chain (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Merge to Category:Hindu temples in Thanjavur district which covers Kumbakonam. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Things should be cat by being in some defined area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed this weird "Temples around X" thing cropping up a lot lately; it's imprecise and inappropriate, because if there aren't enough temples in X to justify categorizing them as "Temples in X", then the state or district category is sufficient. Delete all Indian temple categories that have the word "around" in them (this isn't the only one kicking around, trust me.) Bearcat (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2011 (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:Bibliographies of fantasy works
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Bibliographies of fantasy works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Fantasy bibliographies —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 2 August 2011 (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:Ports and harbors of Antarctica
- 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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Ports and harbors of Antarctica to Category:Ports and harbours of Antarctica
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Tricky one, since Antarctica for the most part is uninhabited and therefore doesn't use UK or US English, but many of these places were originally named by British explorers and more generally use the term "harbour" (of those with articles, there are 17 harbours and only five harbors). The majority of the suspended claims to Antarctica are also from countries which use UK English or are in Europe rather than from the US or the Americas. It's not a biggie, but I think the UK spelling makes more sense. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose here is one where there is no "better" term and first in time is first in right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comments below - it's pretty clear that one is "better" in this case, due to (a) namign at discovery, (b) language or usual Wikipedia convention of claimant countries, (c) usage on articles and subcateories within this category, and (d) majority of written sources. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose I created the category after looking at the lonesome articles, and seeing that British claims are not more than one of many in Antartica, I used the American spelling. Rename is just part of a ongoing attempt to purge all non-UK spellings from WP, I suppose. One cannot use non-English languages for support since they are always translated into the English variety of the translator (or so I was told whenever I tried to make changes into American English). Hmains (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, okay... but it just looks odd since the overwhelming majority of its articles and every single one of its ten subcategories use "harbour". And no, they're not always translated into the English of the editor - US English is customarily used for Latin America, UK English is customarily used for Europe and former European colonies. Hence my original comment about "countries which use UK English or are in Europe rather than from the US or the Americas". You're right about British claims, but the places were largely named by the explorers who discovered them - most of whom were either British or European. And when you consider that the majority of land claims are from Norway (European), France (European), Australia (UK English), New Zealand (UK English), South Africa (UK English), and the UK, whereas the US-spelling would customarily only be used for the Argentinian and Chilean claims, it's pretty lopsided to use US English for this category. Also, it's fairly odd given the overwhelming majority of sources both online and in print which use UK spelling for locations in Antarctica. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild support having browsed the articles in the sub-cats, but it's no big deal. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This seems to violate the general rule to not rename the English used unless there is a clear preference for the other usage, and with the conditions here there is no clear preference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2011 (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:Late Victorian architecture in the United States
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Late Victorian architecture in the United States to Category:Victorian architecture in the United States
- Category:Late Victorian architecture in Connecticut to Category:Victorian architecture in the United States
- Category:Late Victorian architecture in New York to Category:Victorian architecture in the United States
- Category:Late Victorian architecture in North Dakota to Category:Victorian architecture in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Our article on Victorian architecture does not appear to make a distinction, or define the period, for a late Victorian period. While this may be an NRHP designation, it remains to be seen that we need to categorize this distinction. If we do, then the category should be renamed to indicate that this is a significant NRHP designation and not a category that is for general use. If a consensus develops, the three subcategories will need to be added to the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge As the nom, there is no as yet sourcing for such a distinction.Curb Chain (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2011 (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:Sit-Up
- 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Sit-Up to Category:Bid Shopping
- Nominator's rationale: The company was renamed as Bid Shopping on 1 August 2011. Jasmeet_181 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2011 (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.