< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

Category:Referendums

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently there is a disparity in the use of the term that is unresolvable. In the US a referendum is a type of ballot measure that rescinds an existing legislative act. Not all ballot measures are referendums. Ballot measures consist of initiatives, referendums, recalls, and legislative referrals; all of which are exclusive of each other. Greg Bard (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It hadn't thought of using that category. I would be willing to withdraw the proposal The problem is that the "Initiatives in the United States" category is under the "Referendums" category, and the terms are used in different senses. So in this sense, "Ballot measures" doesn't belong under "Referendums." Greg Bard (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But isn't that addressed by the earlier nomination today? If more splitting is needed, then it does not need also be discussed here, does it? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is bigger than I realized. I think what the "Referendums" category is being used for is what should be in "Ballot measures." I think much of the content of that category should move to the more general term "Ballot measures." We need to agree on terms for the US, UK and everyone else. Greg Bard (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
doesn't this contain referendums and plebesites? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merriam-Webster? The Wikipedia article definition is not consistent with the usage that Timrollpickering is enforcing. So we need to either degrade the Wikipedia article to the "dictionary" level of understanding, or we need to enforce the usage of the article, Referendum, as it developed. Greg Bard (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and neither the lead section of Referendum nor Referendum#United_States has any references. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, yes, it is a reliable source.Greg Bard (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that you agree with something does not make it a WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Professional

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) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A collection of unconnected things and concepts that simply share the name "professional" - grouping "professional sports" with "professional negligence" and "professional courtesy" is an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. BencherliteTalk 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly oppose -
--Penbat (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law doing in a subcategory of Category:Management? It's a category mess. BencherliteTalk 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it is not a mess. I was intending to shortly add new articles professional boundaries and professional competence to this category. Professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law are all aspects of professionalism. Anyway you conveniently mention Category:Management but not Category:Occupations --Penbat (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, they don't belong together in a subcategory of Category:Occupations either. BencherliteTalk 14:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would support a move to "professionalism", however, I Support the proposal to delete it otherwise.Greg Bard (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont mind if the template is called "professional" or "professionalism".--Penbat (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted from CFD October 28 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: So far, there seems to be a clear consensus not to retain a category called "professional". However, there is not so far a consensus on whether it should be renamed and repurposed as a more narrowly-focused category on "professionalism".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply - Actually I think "Occupations" is an inappropriate parent for most of the contents also, if less obviously so. The only parents I can think of for this category only apply to a handful of its articles, and when I check those articles they are already in the appropriate tree themselves. I think I can see the aim here, but I don't see it achieved, or can think of a way to do so. --Qetuth (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Aviation terminology

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) 03:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete (and WP:SALT?). This category has recently been re-created and populated with a selection of aviation articles. There is no reason for most (probably all) of the articles currently in the category to be under Category:Terminology (and hence under Category:Language). Most similar subjects (e.g. Road transport) do not have a "terminology" category. The main problem caused by such a category is that new articles would be placed in it _instead_ of being placed in the appropriate category/ies (there's some notes about this on my user page). DexDor (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment How do you define "key terminology" ? e.g. how do you decide which articles under Category:Aircraft wing components to include ? Why is ACARS "key", but not TCAS ? How does this fit with WP:OC#ARBITRARY ? My reason for believing that articles are sometimes placed in terminology/terms category instead of the appropriate categories is experience - for example look at the history of articles in Category:Aircraft navigation; prior to the creation of that category many articles about aircraft navigation were placed in the terminology category which appears (as do many of the terms/terminology categories) to have been used as a "miscellaneous" category (for articles that an editor wants to move down the category hierarchy, but hasn't found/created a category for). DexDor (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment That's a good point. I would agree that TCAS is key terminology, and should probably be in there. If you want to discuss what we should define as key terminology, we can do that. I would define key terminology as commonly used phrases information that any airline pilot would be expected to know. I say airline pilot because their are some key concepts that a private would not need or be expected to know, but nonetheless represent significant terminology, such as TCAS, for instance. To be perfectly honest, looking at your userpage, I get the impression you have some sort of bone to pick with 'terminology' categories in general. Rest assured, I wasn't trying to stir anything up. I saw the category redlinked, and that it had been deleted due to being empty, and concluded that someone needed to recreate it and populate it. Skrelk (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The previous Aviation terminology category was under Category:Language. All the articles in it that were not about language were moved to more appropriate categories (e.g. Pressure suit was moved to Category:Aircrew clothing) making it easier to find articles about similar subjects. Wikipedia does have some articles that are about language (e.g. Clothing terminology and Researchsome), but I'm not aware of any articles where both aviation and language are defining characteristics of the subject.
Terminology/Terms categories (in combination with editors who don't understand categorisation) can cause many articles to be wrongly categorised (for example the Yaesu FT-77 (S) article isn't about language, but is about an radio transceiver). That's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid.
If the new Aviation terminology category is for articles whose titles are commonly used terms/phrases that any airline pilot would be expected to know (or articles about subjects that any airline pilot would be expected to know about) then I'm not sure how this would fit into WP categorization; are there any other categories with similar inclusion criteria ? Would it be better as a list article ? DexDor (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. I think it's reasonable to have a category for key terms. Skrelk (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 Bee Gees 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: Rename to Category:Bee Gees album tracklist templates. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Bee Gees, there is no need for this category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Nicole Scherzinger album covers

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) 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. Artist has only released one album. Statυs (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What does another category have to do with this one? That's quite ridiculous. How is a single cover an album cover? I'd assume that video releases (DVD or Blu-ray covers) are also included in such a category. I think we're gonna need an overhaul of category renames. Statυs (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.

People of Hong Kong descent

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) 03:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge triple intersections to all parents, for the same reasons as Category:American actors of Hong Kong descent which was upmerged per CFD Oct 19. The British politicians are already in more specific sub-cats of Category:British politicians. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Canadian gay-related television programs

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 to Category:Canadian LGBT-related television programs and Category:Gay-related television programs; the latter to be decided on its own merits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Canadian gay-related television programs to Category:Canadian LGBT-related television programs
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is nothing that indicates that Canadian television treats gay men so differently from lesbians, bisexuals or transpeople that a separate splinter category for "gay-related" shows is warranted. Category creator has made a number of these categories and has been asked repeatedly to stop while other similar cats are discussed here. Buck Winston (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please cite the body of evidence that indicates that homosexual males in Canadian television were treated so differently than homosexual females or bisexual males that this category is warranted. Buck Winston (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not wishing to speak for Fayenatic London, but I don't read FL's comment as doing anything other than agreeing with you that the category ought to go - FL is just pointing out that the category has two parents, and the articles in it ought to be upmerged to both of them. I disagre, as I now explain.BencherliteTalk 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Ulla Jones

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) 01:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Improvised music albums by Australian artists

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) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All kinds of music is improvised--a lot of jazz, freestyling rap, rock solos--this isn't a genre of music, just an element common to several genres. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Initiatives and referendums 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: no consensus to split. This is without prejudice to a fresh nomination to consider the proposal by Vegaswikian to rename the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not a good idea to lump together Referendums, Initiatives, and Recall. They are distinct types of questions. This split will cause for the parent and child categories to be more meaningful. Not every ballot measure is either a referendum, or an initiative.Greg Bard (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Amended proposal: Referenda --> Referendums)
This isn't the issue AT ALL, so I have amended my proposal. "Referendums" is just fine with me. However, initiatives are not a type of referendum. Greg Bard (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.

Mass media

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) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC):* Propose renaming Category:Media by genre to Category:Mass media by genreReply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow the parent Category:Mass media and disambiguate from Category:Wikipedia media files. It is probably not necessary to carry this renaming any further, but I think it is desirable for these these "Media by foo" categories. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Local Government Areas 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: No consensus. I am not prepared to say that the discussion below constitutes a sufficient consensus to rename the entire LGA tree. BHG's concerns are relevant here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: local is a common noun (but capital remains per convention); government and area are common nouns and the capitalisation should be removed; this proposed renaming is for meant for this category's sub-categories as well, consequent on approbation Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)))Reply[reply]
Comment Government departments do regularly use Self-Importance or Bureaucratese capitals. We tend to avoid them. I notice on one of the example pages given above the use of Maps, Regional and Metropolitan which are hardly proper. Crusoe8181 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Compilation albums of number-one 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a trivial association with an arbitrary starting point--the Beatles' 1. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Queer Jews

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) 01:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 27#Category:Gay Hindus that LGBT+religion categories should not be subdivided further in this way. BencherliteTalk 08:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Beijing culture

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) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other similar categories. MakecatTalk 07:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nomGreg Bard (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:CableACE award nominees

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) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can understand categories for winners of awards, but not for nominees. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:People accused of blasphemy

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 to Category:Blasphemy; remove articles that do not belong in the target category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's very easy to make harmful allegations against people.
In addition to parent category Category:Blasphemy, we already have appropriate categories for People prosecuted for blasphemy and People convicted for blasphemy and People executed for blasphemy, which actually make sense. Mere accusations of blasphemy historically were very common – for instance, Flaubert was accused of writing blasphemous literature. Jesus Christ was accused of blasphemy and accused others of it. [7] [8]
And isn't it significant to actually evaluate who did the accusing, how notable was the accusation? A category is inherently incapable of considering that. Also, we have deleted these types of categories before – for instance, over here because
1) possible WP:BLP issues;
2) "Accused" is the equivalent of "alleged" and categories based on allegations are strongly disfavored.
Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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