< June 30 July 2 >

July 1

Category:People from Wellington City

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. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was moved from the former to the current name back in Sept 10, by the consensus of single IP editor. The main article is Wellington, not Wellington City. I don't know too much about cities and naming conventions of New Zealand places, so unless a better argument is presented, the category should match the article. If it isn't moved, recommend that both Category:People from Wellington and Category:People from Wellington (city) redirect to the current name. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd possibly think that Category:People from London would apply to people from London, Ontario? A note at the top of the category would then not make it ambiguous. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that could happen. There is no easy way when looking at categories to find members that are not correct where there are multiple common uses. There is nothing wrong with disambiguation even if some editors believe that it is bad. In some cases, it is near impossible to verify the links to articles! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wellington City redirects to Wellington City Council. I don't understand the confusion between Wellington and Wellington City. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you suggesting is confused? Me, you, or Wikipedia? I don't think I'm confused about anything; I've lived in NZ and am fairly up on the background facts. The article Wellington appears to me to be about the urban area rather than Wellington City proper. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I assume the same applies to Christchurch? But that category is Category:People from Christchurch and not People from Christchurch City. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the same doesn't apply to Christchurch. The Christchurch urban area and Christchurch city are pretty much co-extensive. The Wellington urban area has five cities within it, one of which is Wellington City. In that respect, it is somewhat unique in NZ. There could be a separate WP article about Wellington City, but pretty much everything we would want to say in such an article already exists in either Wellington or Wellington City Council. Grutness is from NZ too and I think he set out the problems of the Wellington situation well in the previous nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what if the main article was moved from Wellington to Wellington City...?! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the article, it seems to be more about the general urban area than Wellington City. And when people refer to "Wellington", often they are referring to the general urban area rather than Wellington City. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But so does London (disambiguation)#Places. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See JPL's comment below, which I endorse. The difference in magnitude ain't so great here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other similar examples, though, where the difference in population is far less. See, eg, Category:Cambridge and Category:Cambridge, Ontario, both of which are estimated to have populations of around 130,000. I think experience has shown the wisdom of following the name of the main article in category names, even when some degree of residual ambiguity results. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, "Wellington (urban area)" and "Wellington (city)" are not synonymous. Wellington (urban area) includes Wellington City, Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, Porirua, and the Kapiti Coast, all of which are separate cities and have separate categories for people from them. See the subcategories of Category:People from the Wellington Region. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I get the point that they are not synonymous. I am not standing over any particular qualifier or disambiguator, just looking for something which clarifies the scope. I don't mind too much what that is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so renaming it to Category:People from Wellington (urban area) would not clarify its scope—it would broaden its scope. I just wanted to clarify that since it was one of the possible options you floated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2013 (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:Reportedly haunted locations in the Philippines

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I propose these categories be merged due to redundancy. Splitfusion (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2013 (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:Castles in Achaia

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per parent article and categories Constantine ✍ 11:20, 1 July 2013 (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.

University of Hawaii athletics

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. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename all listed. On May 14, the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa announced that effective July 1, all of the school's men's sports teams would adopt the nickname "Rainbow Warriors". This ended a 13-year period in which some teams used "Rainbow Warriors", others used "Warriors", and the baseball team used "Rainbows". The Associated Press reported on it at the time — see this ESPN reprint of the story. Note that because of this change in policy by the school, this may or may not qualify for speedy renaming under C2C. Dale Arnett (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2013 (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:Place names associated with 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are articles about places, not articles about place names. We do not normally categorize places by characteristics of their names (WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES). "associated with" is ambiguous. DexDor (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "most also discuss" isn't enough for categorization - if it was every article about a city would be in categories for architecture, transport, education, culture.... (2) Most articles about places are not categorized by characteristics of their name, many/most of the pages in the categories you listed are disambiguation pages, WP:OTHERSTUFF. (3) "the Jewish connection is much more dubious and debatable" shows that it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Consider this thought experiment: A place is renamed (unlikely in this particular case, but streets, cities etc do sometimes get renamed) would you rename the article and on that basis decide it's no longer eligible to be in the category ? If so, you're categorizing by name (rather than by article subject). Toponymy categories should be for articles about toponymy (e.g. Welsh toponymy), not for articles about places (or dab pages). DexDor (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2013 (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:Ships lost with all hands

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. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a recently-created category that isn't really an appropriate way to categorize ships. Categories like Category:Ships sunk by mines aren't as bad as they categorize a ship by its "cause of death" (we treat articles about individual ships a bit like articles about people). This could be listified. DexDor (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: Firstly, categories aren't a bad thing because they group articles by common features. Secondly, this particular category augments other categories, in particular Category:Missing ships as we know with these ships, when and were they have sunk as opposed to the former where we can't be sure. Thirdly, the information relevant for this category can be found in many ship's registers and shipping related lists with respect to an individual ship and her fate. There is no comprehensive list of ships lost with all hands, not even broken down by year or area.
However, one might consider breaking down this category in subcategories, e.g. Category:U-boats lost with all hands, Category:Warships lost with all hands etc. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question @John Pack Lambert, who is "we" and can you provide a link to some wik-rule that supports your assertion? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why not categorise ships by how catastrophic it was for those on board? From a seafarer's perspective it seems a very reasonable thing to categorise. "Lost with all hands" is only a relative measure, as a troop ship being lost with, for example, "only" 1,000 of the 3,000 people aboard is a bigger disaster than a cargo ship being lost with, say, all 45 hands. But a "Lost with all hands" category can at least group all sinkings from which no-one aboard survived to tell the tale. I have no objection this category and I will continue to add ships to it. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question @BrownHairedGirl, are you saying that this category should not be used to memorialize ships? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just sampled some of the articles now in the category and they all had at least one other missing/shipwreck/lost/sunk etc category - often several such categories. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've CFDed the "abandoned by captain" category. It might be best to leave the "no fatalities" category until this CFD is closed. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2013 (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:Ancient mints

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Ancient mints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Ancient Greek mints
  • Propose deleting Category:Hellenistic mints
Nominator's rationale: I've checked many of the articles in these categories and not found any articles that are specifically about minting coins. Some articles (e.g. Enna, Abacaenum, Palencia) mention coinage and some (e.g. Sights and landmarks of Seville, Soria) don't even mention the mint or coins. In other words, it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these places/articles. This appears to be an attempt to create a list of places where there were mints (inappropriately) in category space; the category header text pretty much acknowledges this ("Most of these articles do not contain much information about the mints themselves") as does the talk page. DexDor (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2013 (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