< March 5 March 7 >

March 6

Category:Films considered box office bombs

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films considered box office bombs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pretty subjective, and therefore not amenable to categorization. According the box office bomb, a bomb is "a film for which the production and marketing costs greatly exceeded the revenue regained by the movie studio", but how much loss we need to meet the "greatly" standard is not clear. Setting an inclusionary standard by drawing the line at any particular dollar value would be arbitrary. A list already exists at List of biggest box office bombs. Category:Box Office Bombs was deleted in 2006. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The list is a much better way to collect this info, being one of the rare occassions where WP:CLN doesn't apply. Lugnuts (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unclear definition, any need is better served by the list. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 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:Hidden Champion

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hidden Champion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is essentially an arbitrary category, based mostly on a business/marketing theory espoused by single individual, Hermann Simon, rather than a notable and recognized type of company. Dbratland (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Herman Simom originates the Idea, that's right, but it has lots of references as you can see in the Hidden Champions article and with some more serios research. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know which sources specifically use this term, and what their definitions of it are. Most of your citations are to open Wikis, like German Wikipedia. These footnotes should be removed from Hidden Champions, since they fail the criteria for WP:RS, and replaced with citations of the actual sources. Other than citing Wikipedia, there are articles such as one from Business Week [1], which defines "hidden champions" as having "superior growth, financial strength, global reach, and consistent innovation, according to a study carried out by the Bonn Institute for the Study of Medium-Sized Companies". This is completely different from Simon's three criteria (market share, revenue, and public awareness), and only underscores that while the term "hidden champion" might be somewhat current, the definition of the term is arbitrary. --Dbratland (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the newsweek more seriously, you'll find that your citation doesn't give a definition but a description of typically ones. The difference between you may find out reading the article. A few sentences later in newsweek you find a reference to Herman Simon. You should be happy to find a business therm defined that precise because mostly it is not. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you prefer (hidden) interwikies instead of proper references: you can find that now. May be you are interested in some more sources (in German)? A a series in DER SPIEGEL, Financial Times Germany, former German Chancellor Schröder, University of Stuttgart having a graduate concept with hidden champions, Master program refers to hidden champions, Handelsblatt, one of the most serious German business magazins, etc., etc. about 290,000 Google matches with "hidden champions"-- Tasma3197 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the potential spam magnet. But there are lots of categories you can tell the same about. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 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:Isle of Man geographical coordinates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Isle of Man geographical coordinates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a useful category. If someone wants to see all Manx coordinates, a complete report can be obtained using [2]. The category is incomplete and more difficult to maintain. Besides, shouldn't ALL geographical features (i.e. Category:Geography of the Isle of Man have geographical coordinates? Stepheng3 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 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:Black peoples in art

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:Black people in art to fix the plural without prejudice to any wider discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black peoples in art to Category:Black people in art
Nominator's rationale: Rename. People is already plural. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. While there are instances where such double plurals are correct (for instance, to refer collectively to two or more societies of "black" people) the category in question is not such an instance. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might reflect a systematic bias of editors. I suppose indigenous Australians and Melanesians in art should be in a separate categories, because the art is not closely related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 8 March 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:Limbu family names

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Limbu family names to Category:Limbu-language surnames
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the convention for similar categories. The other option is to delete since the sole article in the category is in fact a userspace page that would possibly be deleted if it was sent to AfD. Pichpich (talk) 15:50, 6 March 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:Disputed biographies of living persons

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: result Category:Disputed biographies of living persons to Category:Disputed biographies of living people. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disputed biographies of living persons to Category:Disputed biographies of living people
If not, then rename:
Category:Living people to Category:Living persons (over category redirect)
Category:Possibly living people to Category:Possibly living persons
Category:Missing people to Category:Missing persons (over category redirect)
Category:Biography articles of living people to Category:Biography articles of living persons
Category:Biography articles of living people who have requested removal to Category:Biography articles of living persons who have requested removal
Nominator's rationale: These categories should all be consistant - either all "people" (preferable), or all "persons". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, the category had two pages in it until I removed one because the tag was three years old and the editor who was entering the disputed information has not been heard from in three years. The other page is in a template's archive.
I do not think the matter is worth the effort that has already been expended much less the effort that would be involved in a rename, with its accompanying redirect. JimCubb (talk) 02:53, 7 March 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:American military personnel by war sub-category standardizxation and proper inclusion

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: New split discussion. As there's been no further discussion and uncertainty, whilst a "no consensus" close will not really solve anything, I'm going to nominate the two remaining categories separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Category:United States military personnel of the American Revolution
The American Civil War categories are more complicated because on investigation a separate Union only category for Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War has been created; this name is inconsistent with Category:American military personnel killed in the American Civil War which covers both Union and Confederate casualties. A mass nomination to thrash out which term should be used for which context is probably best; this is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#The adjective "American" in American Civil War categories Timrollpickering (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for further discussion on the remaining categories Previous discussion here

The result of the discussion was: A mix. There's consensus and convention to rename:

However the American Revolution and (especially) the American Civil War categories are more problematic because of inconsistent use of the term "American" in the structure. They are best relisted for further discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the current name of the ex-parent category exists there is a high likelyhood someone else will return the CSA soldiers category there, and the civil war category is currently named to make the return of CSA soldiers likely. My new plan is actually to remove Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War from this tree and create the category Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War as a subcategory of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War should be at the top of a tree, with primary sub-cats for Confederate military personnel and Union/American/United States (pick one) military personnel. I just browsed around a bit and decided the entire ACW hierarchy is a gigantic cluster-f**k, exacerbated by the ambiguity of the term "American"; in particular, "American Civil War foos" can be taken to mean the all-inclusive "Foos of the American Civil War", or the more ambiguous "American Foos of the Civil War". Check the parent categories of Category:Confederate States Army officers for an example of why I described the situation as I did. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"later they stopped"? No, later they were defeated and surrendered, but during the war they were not part of the "American" (United States) military, any more than during the Revolutionary War, the United States military personnel were a sub-group of Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War, even though they were British, there was a rebellion, and some of the British joined the rebellion. Agree with nominator. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 6 March 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.

Drainage systems of Australia

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Drainage systems of Australia to Category:Drainage basins of Australia
Nominator's rationale: The parent categories all refer to “Drainage Basin” and many (perhaps half) of the ariicles and subcategories refer to "Basin”, though several refer to "Division”. Hugo999 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The category, as it stood at the time of proposal, was not fit for re-naming. I've taken the opportunity to put a few categories and articles into the parent category of Category:Endorheic basins of Australia. The remaining sub-cats and articles now meet the criteria for drainage basins and so the re-naming can proceed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most of the articles in this category relate to drainage divisions, rather than drainage basins.[3] This should be perhaps be renamed Category:Drainage divisions of Australia, though I'm not sure what the parent category should be, and a new subcategory created for Category:Drainage basins of Australia. Melburnian (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query Would it not be accurate to say that, in effect, each of the 12 Divisions is no more than a grouping of things that are themselves drainage basins? If so, is this any different to grouping the rivers of the French Riviera and the rivers of the Catalan Region into a parent category of drainage basins of the Mediteranean? The Australian category would contain articles describing how the basins are organised, as opposed to containing sub-categories of articles of how they are organised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I find the placement of divisions problematic, the nuts and bolts off this move will be the deletion of the not quite right and ambiguous category title Category:Drainage systems of Australia and create the validly titled Category:Drainage basins of Australia so I have withdrawn my opposition.Melburnian (talk) 10:20, 8 March 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:Possible bogus articles

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. Any article which may possiblyt fit here should be tagged with a ((hoax)) tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Possible bogus articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete- Duplicate of Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles, but the latter is better named. Empty, but a project category that might become empty from time to time so didn't want to C1 it. VegaDark (talk) 08:36, 6 March 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:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games templates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This WikiProject is gone. Its category contains only a template which belongs under the watch of WP Video Games, and a template which is at TfD. This category is no longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:15, 6 March 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.

Alumnae of women's universities and colleges

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 to use the term "alumni" rather than than "alumnae".
The argument in favour alumnae is that it is the correct Latin term to use when referring to a solely-female group. However, most editors were persuaded by the counter-arguments, the most significant of which is that when used in English, Latin terms follow the rules of English, which does not routinely use a gendered form and where current practice is increasingly to drop gendered forms of words (e.g. "actresses" has fallen out of favour). Subsidiary arguments were that differential formats place an extra burden on editors and readers, because knowledge of whether to use "alunmi" or "alumnae" depends on knowing whether the institution has always been 100% female. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming either
Or
(Note that Hollins University, St Hilda's College, Oxford, Trinity Washington University, Vassar College and Wheaton College (Massachusetts) all admit men to at least some courses so "alumnae" would be inaccurate. Note also that different country categories use different approaches for Alumni of Foo and For alumni.)
There's never been any consistency on whether to use "alumni" or "alumnae" for the former students of all-female universities and colleges. In Latin "alumni" is the plural for either all male or mixed-gender groups, "alumnae" is the plural for all female groups. However English generally doesn't have such a distinction and incorporated words tend to take English rules.
There's also no consistency by country with these categories; both lists contain institutions in India, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Since there are more alumni than alumnae categories, and we can't say for sure that all alumns of a women's university/college are still female, my preference is for Or - Rename to alumni. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I withdraw the specific nomination for Category:Smith College alumni as it's been pointed out this is another one where men are admitted for some programmes. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 19 March 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.
More