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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. We don't usually categorize things by being located in "Asia Pacific". Normal practice is to have a category for "Asia" and to have a different category for "Oceania", if appropriate. Here, the only article in the category is about a school in Singapore, which is in Asia. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:54, 30 May 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:Cross bench life peers
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.
Propose renaming Category:Cross bench life peers to Category:Cross-bench life peers
Nominator's rationale: "Cross-bench" is a compound adjective in this use, and so should be hyphenated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain what a "cross-bench life peer" is for us non-English-speaking English speakers? Harley Hudson (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Life peers are peers who are not hereditary: their title lapses at their death and is not passed on or otherwise transferred. Peers sit in the House of Lords. Unlike the House of Commons, which has only government and opposition benches, the Lords has a third set arranged at right-angles (those at lower centre of this picture) - hence "cross-bench". Peers who sit on these are essentially neutral, favouring neither the government nor the opposition. See also Crossbencher#United Kingdom. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this would be the equivalent of Category:United States Senators who are neither Democrats nor Republicans? Harley Hudson (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a way: but a Senator who is neither Democrat nor Republican may still belong to a political party (see Category:United States Senators by party). Crossbench peers should be considered as Independents. At the moment in the UK, we have a two-party coalition, so peers who are either Conservative or Liberal Democrat sit on the government benches (to the left as you face the throne), all other party-aligned peers (whether Labour or otherwise), take the opposition benches (to the right). Non-party-aligned peers take the cross-benches (in the middle). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 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:Highland
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) 11:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Highland is too ambiguous. Proposed name is per the main article in the category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Support per nom and per main article name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 31 May 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:Arc-based television series
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) 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete The main problem with this category is that there is no clear criterion for membership. Some shows are obviously arc-based but some are harder to classify. Some sitcoms (say Seinfeld) include important story-arcs that can be essential to understanding an episode. Some drama series (say House or many cop-shows) have fairly self-contained episodes despite the story-arcs. The "arc-based" classification is therefore somewhat subjective. Moreover this category groups articles with a tenuous relationship and, if fully populated, it will become too large to be useful for browsing. (Of course, it's also useless as a maintenance category). Pichpich (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I created it I didn't realise there was already a similar category Category:Serial drama television series which does approximately what I tried to achieve with the new category, so it can be deleted. The reason why I created it in the first place was mainly because I don't like watching tv series which have a lot of self-contained episodes (meaning self-contained episodes are at most an exception in that series). I prefer longer spanning arcs, it makes things more interesting. So I thought it would be easier to find such shows if there were a category for it. The older category is good enough for me. Even though it probably has the same flaws mentioned in the comment above. --helohe(talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In some shows, in the page with the episode list. An asterisk (*) is used to indicate which episodes are part of (one of) the bigger story arc(s). or alternatively to indicate self-contained episodes. As has been done here List of The X-Files episodes for example. That would be a convenient way to have this information. --helohe(talk) 12:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have yet to see a live-action show that absolutely produces standalone episodes.Curb Chain (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits, or other anthology shows? 65.94.47.217 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 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.
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 some, cleanup on others. There's no strong argument here to keep the outliers "Closed," "Non operational," and "Former." It's not clear whether "Defunct" or "Disused" should be preferred, or whether both should be kept. But I'm comfortable renaming "Closed" to "Disused" to standardize the Australia categories, "Former" to "Defunct" to standardize the India categories, and "Non operational" to "Disused" for... well, for no particular reason except to get rid of it. We should definitely have a discussion where only "Disused" and "Defunct" are on the table. There's a strongly compelling argument for "Defunct" since there are no other categories of any kind that use "Disused," whereas there are a great many non-railway station categories that use "Defunct." But several commenters here seem to prefer "Disused."--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disused railway stations in Wrexham county borough
Category:Defunct railway stations in the United States
Category:Defunct railway stations in New Jersey
Rename all to a single pattern to be fully consistant. Currently we have 8 "closed", 23 "defunct", 202 "Disused", 1 "Former" and 2 "Non operational". Preferably to "Abandoned", per main article of parent category, Abandoned railway station. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disused. Abandoned isn't quite the right word for places like Portbury where the station is no longer used as a station, but is still in use as a private dwelling. Abandoned specifically, to me, means left to rot, whereas disused just means it's not used as a station. Defunct is a bit of a strange word and is more suitable for railway companies. Also this way we have less to rename. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, but clarify their use (shared template?) Many stations are 'disused' stations on still working lines, but it would be excessive to label these as defunct, when there are still non-stopping trains passing through them. We can use 'defunct' for those that have gone further and no longer have functioning tracks. I think private dwelling could be either defunct or disused, depending similarly on whether the line is still working or not. I wouldn't object to abandoned for those that really are abandoned and heading for dereliction, but that's likely to be a distinction too far. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there are any cases of "both" - i.e. I haven't noticed that "Category:Defunct railway stations in ThisArea" and "Category:Disused railway stations in ThisArea" both exist - for any given area, the category is generally either "closed", "defunct" or "disused", never more than one of those, and all stations-which-are-no-longer-open are bundled together into the one cat. What you're suggesting will effectively double the number of categories. At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 30#Category:Defunct railway stations in Kingston upon Hull it was suggested that multiple terms should be used to denote the physical state of the station buildings. This seems very much like overcomplication to me. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this doesn't double the number of categories. It might at most double their number, but only if we create them all. A naming convention doesn't imply having to go out and create the entire set forthwith. If there are notable stations described that are either 'disused' or 'defunct', then we can create their regional categories as needed. Only if we find the need to list examples of both for a region (and that would suggest some value in being able to tell them apart) do we need both of the two categories.
Secondly, we're still not short of bytes. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I feel this may be a case of differences due to local usage... Grutness...wha? 01:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been willing to believe that, if not for the fact that the Australia categories are inconsistant (2 are Disused, the rest are Closed). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'd go for "disused" for all of them. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize stick to one term and use that. I have myself created several of these categorizes, and I have retrospectively found that I have been quite inconsistent in use of term. The meaning is quite marginal, and this is a good chance to rename them all to one). I cannot see that there should be any sort of different wording for different countries. As 'disused' is most used, I would support that, but the rest of the terms are also fine. Arsenikk(talk) 11:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Standardise - 'disused' seems to be the most common term, and the Abandoned railway station article actually leads with 'Abandoned (or disused) railway station...' Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changes in the US since I believe that the current naming reflects the common usage. This really comes down to usage by country and this multi country nomination is really not going to reach an overall decision. We really need to define how we use defunct, disused, former, closed, previous and any number of other descriptions. This question keeps coming up without any discussions on the underlying definitions. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 3 June 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:Norwegian Antarctic Territory
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) 11:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no such thing as the 'Norwegian Antarctic Territory', the article redirect to 'dependencies of Norway' and everything should be categorized under the appropriate dependency or that category. Arsenikk(talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a Norwegian Antarctic territory, so the category would be Category:Norwegian Antarctic territories, or the current proposed title would work, being more general. Though... is it a dependency, since the Antarctic Treaty suspends all claims on Antarctica 65.94.44.141 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Norway has two Antarctic territories, Queen Maud Land and Peter I Island. They are located at two different halves of the Antarctic and are two different claims. Neigher are referred to as the 'Norwegian Antarctic Territory', which is a term which was keyed by someone on Wikipedia some years ago. Using the term to refer to one or both of them is OR. Arsenikk(talk) 11:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put "the"; I put "a". I could have put "What are Queen Maud Land and Peter I Island then, if not Norwegian Antarctic Territories?", but I didn't, so as to be succinct, which I'm now failing to be... --Redrose64 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@65.94.44.141: The treaty does not suspend dependency claims, it merely states that the treaty does not effect any of the existing claims, and that new claims cannot be made by signatories while the treaty is in effect. Arsenikk(talk) 11:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the category a duplicate of Category:Dependencies of Norway, as all Norwegian dependencies are in the Antarctic or Sub-Antarctic. Also, Marie Byrd Land is not claimed by Norway, and Bouvet Island is a Sub-Antarcitc island, which is why 'dependencies of Norway' is the most accurate description. Please also note that Antarctica and Antarctic are not the same: Queen Maud Land is part of Antarctica, Peter I Island is part of the Antarctic and Bouvet Island is part of the Sub-Antarctic. Arsenikk(talk) 11:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that both Jan Mayen and Svalbard are treated as integral overseas areas of Norway and not as dependent territories. I therefore withdraw my proposal to "keep and rename". Davshul (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Enough of this nascent colonialism and incipient irredentism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no such entity, as discussed well above. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:21, 2 June 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:Wolverine and the X-Men episodes
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) 11:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The individual episodes of this series are not independently notable so this category can't expand. It's not needed for the episode list. The article is already in appropriate categories. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:47, 30 May 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:X-Men (TV series) characters
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:X-Men (TV series) characters to Category:All parents
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Around ten or so articles for non-notable iterations of the characters from this series were recently deleted per my PRODs. The category is not needed for the single list article and there is no likelihood of expansion. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:44, 30 May 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.