April 6
WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods
- 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Rename. WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods has been renamed WP:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and neighbourhoods. 117Avenue (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Article was recently moved from "Title Case" to "Sentence case" as it originally should have been per MOS:TITLES. The above will bring the cats into conformity with the title of the WikiProject. Hwy43 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternate renaming... 117Avenue what about changing the WikiProject name and all associated categories to WikiProject Saskatchewan communities? A "neighbourhood" is a type of community (a sub-unit of a municipality) so the current title is essentially redundant. Hwy43 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of a WikiProject should be discussed on that WikiProject, not discussed as an after thought. 117Avenue (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, and that can be done, but if you are supportive of the alternate name, then perhaps we can put this on hold to allow for a discussion at the WikiProject. Hwy43 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2014 (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:Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement
- 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:Central America solidarity movement. The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement to Category:Central American peace and solidarity movement
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Inconclusively discussed at Speedy page, where alternatives were raised. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
|
- Category:Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement to Category:Central America peace and solidarity movement – No Caps, not a proper name. Cgingold (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about this one... Some sources seem to capitalize the name—for example, see Perla (2008), Latin American Research Review. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing unusual about that -- it's very common for writers, etc. to capitalize terms that aren't proper names, for emphasis or whatever. That still doesn't make it a proper, formal name that requires capitalization. Furthermore, this movement was referred to by other variants of the term, for example "Central America solidarity movement" was probably the most common term in use and the term I would have used if I had created the category. Cgingold (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We tend to go with common usage, and if a movement is commonly capitalized, it's OK for WP to do so too. It's my sense that this is one that could probably have a tendency to be capitalized, but I see kind of a mixed bag from my preliminary searches. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Rename. On balance, I would say change it to small caps. It's not consistently capitalized, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - However, it should actually be Category:Central America peace and solidarity movement -- no "n" on "America", as that makes it sound like the movement was "Central American", i.e. based in and comprised of people in Central America, when it was multinational and was in fact primarily based in and comprised of people in the United States. I have a good deal more to say on the larger issue of what name should be used for the category, but I just don't have time right at the moment. Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement" refers to a particular movement and essentially functions as a proper noun. The lower-case title "Central American peace and solidarity movement" is misleading because there have been multiple peace and solidarity movements that have been Central American in one way or another. "Central America peace and solidarity movement" (without the -n) might be less confusing, but it is basically not used outside of Wikipedia (compare with results with the "-n"). If there is consensus to rename, then my preference is strongly for Category:Central American peace and solidarity movement (with the -n). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you when you say that "Central American peace and solidarity movement" is misleading, both for the reason I articulated and for the reason you just explained. So I am at a loss to understand why you would support that as a 2nd choice. Cgingold (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your detailed and convincing response below. I did not think to search for the topic without including "peace and solidarity" in quotation marks, and so the results I encountered were indeed skewed. Rename to Category:Central America solidarity movement. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename certainly: probably as nom. This is not an organization, and we have no main article for it. Good grammar requires an adjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, "good grammar" does not "require" an adjective. It depends entirely on the semantic intent. In this case using an adjective would be misleading, as I have explained above (and below). Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #1 - re Proper Noun claim" - Most things that come up here at CFD are debatable. This one isn't. I have both first-hand knowledge of the subject and extensive "second-hand" knowledge as well (i.e. books and articles, radio & television reports, etc.). I wish my old friend Black Falcon had carried out a more extensive Google search and looked more closely at the results. The fact of the matter is that the capitalized term "Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement" derives entirely from a single source. It comes from the name of a book by Héctor Perla called "Si Nicaragua Venció, El Salvador Vencerá: Central American Agency in the Creation of the U.S.–Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement" [italics added]. That book has been reviewed and cited in numerous places, which is the only reason the term shows up online.
- Here are the key results of a very careful Google search which clearly and unequivocally corroborates what I have just explained:
- "Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement" = 5650 hits
- "Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement" -Perla -Wikipedia = 24 hits
- It's not at all surprising that the "lower case" variant that I proposed doesn't turn up on the internet, because the term itself has never been widely or commonly used beyond references to the book. (In fact, I don't recall ever hearing or coming across any use of that term when the solidarity movement was active during the 1980s & 90s.) As I said above (at Speedy), if I had created the category I would have chosen Category:Central America solidarity movement, as that was by far the most widely used term, and was understood to include the notion of "peace". However, for our purposes here on Wikipedia, I see nothing wrong with using Category:Central America peace and solidarity movement. Either term would be entirely acceptable. [NOTE: I will address the other major issue shortly in a separate comment.] Cgingold (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #2 - re "America" vs. "American" - To begin with, I really have to reiterate what I said above: Using "American" is misleading because it strongly (and wrongly) suggests that the movement we're discussing was based in and comprised of people in Central America, when it was primarily based in the United States for the simple reason that it was fundamentally a response by American activists to our government's intervention in Central America.
- Now, even if we were to put that argument aside, the fact is that there is a strong preference for "America" over "American", as shown by Google hits:
- "Central America solidarity" - 313K
- "Central American solidarity" - 92K
- "Central America solidarity movement" - 155K
- "Central American solidarity movement" - 56K
- And when speaking of other solidarity movements, again there is a clear preference for using un-modified proper nouns rather than converting them to adjectivals, as can be seen in the following table of Google hits:
- "Syria solidarity" movement - 8K
- "Syrian solidarity" movement - 3K
- "Syria solidarity movement" - 46K
- "Syrian solidarity movement" - 16K
---
- "Chile solidarity" movement - 13K
- "Chilean solidarity" movement - 6K
- "Chile solidarity movement" - 15K
- "Chilean solidarity movement" - 10K
---
- "Palestine solidarity" - 524K
- "Palestinian solidarity" - 107K
- "Palestine solidarity" movement - 208K
- "Palestinian solidarity" movement - 54K
- "Palestine solidarity movement" - 18K
- "Palestinian solidarity movement" - 12K
---
- "Cuba solidarity" - 137K
- "Cuban solidarity" - 15K
- "Cuba solidarity" movement - 66K
- "Cuban solidarity" movement - 21K
- "Cuba solidarity movement" - 107K
- "Cuban solidarity movement" - 25K
In closing, I think I have made a clear and convincing case that the category name should not be capitalized, AND that it should use an un-modified proper noun rather than an adjectival form. That leaves us with a choice between either Category:Central America peace and solidarity movement or alternatively, Category:Central America solidarity movement. Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2014 (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:Tacoma Tide players
- 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 - WP:C2D, WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Rebranded a couple years ago. WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - one soccer franchise/team requires one category. GiantSnowman 12:04, 7 April 2014 (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:Canadian women newspaper editors
- 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) 22:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Very clear violation of final-rung rule - there are no other diffusing siblings of this category and it will tend to ghettoize over time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Firstly, I'm not aware of the existence of any academic or sociological literature on "women newspaper editors" as a phenomenon that's in any notable way different from the men kind — though if I'm wrong about that, feel free to let me know — and secondly, as noted, we have an explicit policy against gendered categories in cases where men are left directly in the ungendered parent and women are hived off to a special "not really the real thing" ghetto. Gendered categories may be implemented only when the ungendered parent category is completely diffusable on other grounds and therefore empty of individual articles, and may not be implemented where the effect is to turn women into a subcategory of men. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: I created this category in order to be able to diffuse Category:Canadian women journalists which you created and which currently holds 294 articles and needs to be diffused. I only did minimal work on the category I created knowing full well it will be nominated for deletion within short order. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that Category:Canadian newspaper editors isn't diffusable on other grounds, and thus having this category causes that to be a men-only category with women hived off to a marked ghetto. A gender-specific category has to meet the rules at both ends of its parentage. And 294 articles is not large enough to say that a category needs diffusion, either — a category doesn't "need" diffusion until it's populated in the thousands. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another unneeded sex category. Diffuse by province if diffusion is overarching; many precedents in US categories, among others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete way too specific, only one writer featured --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2014 (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:15th century in the Mamluk Empire
- 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 Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo). Consensus is for a rename. Given that the top level category is Category:Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and the main article is Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), that clearly is the proper choice and any other cleanup should fit the speedy criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:15th century in the Mamluk Empire to Category:15th century in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:15th-century establishments in the Mamluk Empire to Category:15th-century establishments in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:1420s in the Mamluk Empire to Category:1420s in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:1420 in the Mamluk Empire to Category:1420 in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:1420 establishments in the Mamluk Empire to Category:1420 establishments in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:1490s in the Mamluk Empire to Category:1490s in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:1491 in the Mamluk Empire to Category:1491 in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:1490s establishments in the Mamluk Empire to Category:1490s establishments in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Propose renaming Category:1491 establishments in the Mamluk Empire to Category:1491 establishments in the Mamluk Sultanate
- Nominator's rationale: To fit the article Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and to fit other categories of this kind category:14th century in the Mamluk Sultanate and Category:16th century in the Mamluk Sultanate. GreyShark (dibra) 18:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but the target should be Category:15th century in the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt per lead of main article or Category:15th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) per main article. There seems to have been another in Delhi. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no categories for the Delhi sultanate at this time, but indeed this may create a difficulty in the future. Category:15th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) would be my preferrable.GreyShark (dibra) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on this, these have been renamed already two times so it seems that no agreement on the actual name can be found anyway (I still prefer to list them as "in Syria" which is much more relevant for most readers anyway), but please, in the future, don't pre-suppose the outcome of the debate by changing the cats at the same time as proposing the rename: this made it harder than necessary to find what the affected articles would be for all categories higher up in the tree, which are now empty thanks to this edit. Fram (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all to "Mamluk Sultanate" for now. These categories are part of the Category:Centuries in the Mamluk Sultanate category tree, which should be internally consistent. I don't oppose a rename to "Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)", but it should be done for the entire category tree and not just these 15th-century categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:15th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo). The rest of this tree can be renamed speedily. There is already a Category:Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi). – Fayenatic London 08:06, 21 April 2014 (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:1920s in Syria
- 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. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: To fit the relevant political entity of Mandatory Syria at the time (different than modern Syrian Arab Republic, which got independence from France in 1946). Also to fit Category:1920s in Mandatory Palestine and in accordance with treatment of other anachronistic Syrian categories, like here and here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I think I did the mass nomination on Ottoman Syria, whose extent was greater than the present republic. Mandatory Syria and the present Syria are co-terminous, so that the adjective is unnecessary. It is not necessary to match Category:1920s in Mandatory Palestine, because that covers both the present Israel and Palestine. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandatory Syria covered modern Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, Israeli-controlled part of Golan Heights and Hatay Governorate (now Turkish); all this without the complications of Syrian Kurdistan and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Therefore, Mandatory Syria and present Syria are very much non-co-termious, and accurate categorization should also be applied in regard to Mandatory Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 18:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, we should have only one category for the period, but now we have two - one for Syria and one for Mandatory Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. The present-day boundaries of Syria contain all or portions of what was known in the 1920s as the State of Aleppo, the State of Damascus, the Alawite State, and Jabal al-Druze. Modern-day Syria is not coterminous with the four states; for example, part of the State of Aleppo is in present-day Turkey. In 1924, the States of Aleppo and Damascus joined to form the State of Syria, which is also not coterminous with modern-day Syria. Therefore, unless we are willing to proliferate multiple small categories, the most accurate option is to categorize by the political entity as it was known at the time: Mandatory Syria. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2014 (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:Geography of Ottoman Syria
- 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. No need to worry about the other parent Category:Geography of the Ottoman Empire as Category:Ottoman Syria is within that anyway. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope. The two former subcats of this are just as well on the parent, Category:Ottoman Syria. trespassers william (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PLease do not empty categories before nominating them here. Nevertheless, I expect you are right. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Danny lost: - There is a reason the CFD template instructs editors NOT TO EMPTY OUT THE CATEGORY they are nominating for deletion. It is quite simply impossible for other editors to properly consider the issues that are involved and arrive at a sound decision without seeing the contents of the category. Removing the contents preempts the discussion here and assumes that the outcome is a fait accompli. In short, the contents of this category need to be restored by the nominator before this CFD proceeds any further. Cgingold (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, sorry. I did not move the cats up to make a point, I would regardless of the CfD. trespassers william (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for restoring those subcats so quickly. Was that all there was? No articles?? Cgingold (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what was there just prior to cfd. What's funny is that I added one of them two months ago. trespassers william (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2014 (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.
Wineries of the United States by state
- 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:Wineries in Foo". "In" was chosen, intentionally different from "of" in the national parent, to emphasise location rather than the corporation's nominal state. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also remove non-Arizona categories from Category:Arizona wine which was accidentally pasted when tagging the other categories for renaming. – Fayenatic London 14:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Foo wineries to Wineries of Foo
|
- Category:Alabama wineries to Category:Wineries of Alabama
- Category:Arizona wineries to Category:Wineries of Arizona
- Category:California wineries to Category:Wineries of California
- Category:Livermore Valley wineries to Category:Wineries of Livermore Valley
- Category:Napa Valley wineries to Category:Wineries of Napa Valley
- Category:Sonoma County wineries to Category:Wineries of Sonoma County
- Category:Santa Cruz Mountains wineries to Category:Wineries of Santa Cruz Mountains
- Category:Delaware wineries to Category:Wineries of Delaware
- Category:Florida wineries to Category:Wineries of Florida
- Category:Georgia (U.S. state) wineries to Category:Wineries of Georgia (U.S. state)
- Category:Hawaii wineries to Category:Wineries of Hawaii
- Category:Illinois wineries to Category:Wineries of Illinois
- Category:Indiana wineries to Category:Wineries of Indiana
- Category:Maine wineries to Category:Wineries of Maine
- Category:Michigan wineries to Category:Wineries of Michigan
- Category:Minnesota wineries to Category:Wineries of Minnesota
- Category:Missouri wineries to Category:Wineries of Missouri
- Category:New Hampshire wineries to Category:Wineries of New Hampshire
- Category:New Jersey wineries to Category:Wineries of New Jersey
- Category:New York wineries to Category:Wineries of New York
- Category:North Carolina wineries to Category:Wineries of North Carolina
- Category:North Dakota wineries to Category:Wineries of North Dakota
- Category:Ohio wineries to Category:Wineries of Ohio
- Category:Oklahoma wineries to Category:Wineries of Oklahoma
- Category:Oregon wineries to Category:Wineries of Oregon
- Category:Pennsylvania wineries to Category:Wineries of Pennsylvania
- Category:Texas wineries to Category:Wineries of Texas
- Category:Virginia wineries to Category:Wineries of Virginia
- Category:Washington (state) wineries to Category:Wineries of Washington (state)
- Category:West Virginia wineries to Category:Wineries of West Virginia
|
Rationalle: Per the rest of the Category:Wineries by country tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We do companies based in state and wineries are more like companies. The 'of' guideline appears to be directed at the country level or categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not see much object in renaming the California subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my guess is that many corporate wineries in all states are "Delaware" corporations, hardly making them wineries of Delaware. If the articles are principly about the winery (it's land, buildings, vintages, varieties, history), the state in which it's located is proper, if it's about the corporate structure, another locale may be proper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this distinction is important. It makes a difference whether we are categorizing wineries as companies or fixed locations. The former are not geographically fixed (e.g., a company headquartered in New York could own wine-producing land and facilities in California) whereas the latter most definitely are. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Wineries in Foo. I think consensus in the discussion so far is that this is intended to cover the land, buildings, vintages, varieties, history as Carlossuarez46 states. So they should follow the existing naming for things like this, say Category:Hospitals in Utah. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and Vegaswikian. Just a note: some hours ago was created the Category:Florida wineries, that I've listed in the "Foo wineries to Wineries of Foo" list above, but I've not added the CFD template... A curiosity: why almost all the categories of wineries by state are categorized in the Category:Arizona wine? --Dэя-Бøяg 15:21, 17 April 2014 (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:Prime Ministers of Russia
- 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, while keeping appropriate redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: There have been no "prime ministers" since the Russian Empire. The term is used colloquially. Tomcat (7) 10:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The term is frequently used by BBC. You may be right, but it is a likely search term, so that a cat-redirect should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, though I agree with Peterkingiron that the "Prime Ministers" version should be kept in place as a soft redirect since the term is unofficially used widely enough that it's a plausible error for users and editors of Wikipedia to make. I also want to note that the nominator preemptively moved most of the content into the proposed new category before even nominating it for renaming in the first place — however, content is not allowed to be left sitting in redlinked categories, so even if the name is wrong or inappropriate you must leave the category declarations at the category's present name until the discussion actually concludes. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2014 (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:Public transport disambiguation
- 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:Transport route disambiguation pages. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This reader-side categorization of dab pages is redundant to talk-page categorization (Category:Disambig-Class Transport articles which doesn't contain so many pages that it needs public transport to be separate). If not deleted this should be renamed to "Public transport disambiguation pages". For info: An example of a previous similar discussion is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_16#Category:Environment_disambiguation_pages. DexDor (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename -- I had hoped that we had killed all the bus route articles. We had a mass cull on the British ones a while back. The majority of the content is "Route XX (disambiguation)". This covers both bus routes and US roads. Category:Transport route disambiguation would seem about to cover it. HOwever I would not oppose merge to DexDor's target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Transport route disambiguation pages, per Peterkingiron. I think that a good case could be made that this category is not necessary, but I would prefer such an argument to be based on the lack of a need to subdivide Category:Disambiguation pages by topic in general (a much broader discussion), rather than potential overlap with a particular WikiProject category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2014 (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:Afro-Asian Cup of Nations
- 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) 22:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: With the exception of the main article, there do not appear to be any other currently existing articles related to this topic that would be suitable for categorization—i.e., there is not sufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for this competition. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep editions: Apparently all Afro-Asian Cup of Nations editions created (1985, 1991, 2007) were deleted and merged, Dammage. Now I don't know why this category is necessary. The problem is the editions deleted. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They were not deleted; they were all merged (see example) into the main article, where they are currently covered. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes right that's what I mean, there was deleted separatly and merged into the Afro-Asian Cup of Nations article, for me I said dammage. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge per nom. This appears to be a two match series between the winners of African and Asian cups. There is no room for expansion, but the main article needs a category/ies. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (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:German Catholics opposed to the Third Reich
- 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; no consensus to eliminate the religions by upmerging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per the format used within Category:German Resistance members by political affiliation, as well as Category:Orthodox Christians in the German Resistance. As subcategories of Category:German Resistance members, the titles of these categories should make clear that their scope is limited to members of the German Resistance and not just to Catholics or Protestants who did not support the Nazi Party. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- upmerge all but without the religion designation which is not needed - Protestants Catholics Jews and atheists all opposed the nazis we don't need to divide them by religion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Opposition came in several cases out of religious convictions, so that religion is relevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge all per Obiwankenobi; not all people's religious convictions bore on their opposition to the 3rd Reich - this category makes no distinction just the bare intersection. Moreover, people's religious motivations also spurred support for the 3rd Reich but if that's a basis upon which to intersect for categorization, it clearly works both ways; if this is kept or renamed, I should expect the creation and existence of Category:German Catholics supportive of the Third Reich would be entirely proper as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom These fit into their parent categories and should not be disbursed. Religion is relevant here. Hmains (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom - Religious convictions were unquestionably a major factor for many who took the path of Resistance. Cgingold (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom - The religious convictions are defining characteristic of these people. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:10, 15 April 2014 (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:Films shot digitally
- 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Too broad of a category. When it was created films being shot digitally was the exception, now the opposite is true, film is the exception. In a matter of a few years this category will encompass every film. Could possibly be split into subcategories like Films shot on Arri Alexa and Films shot on Red Digital Cinema Cameras, etc.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not defining. We should kill all of the films-by-shooting-format in preference for lists which can elaborate the first or more important usages of a format, an undifferentiated category doesn't help.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- It is far too common to be defining for films after a certain date. It may be useful to have a category for the earliest digital ones, in a period when the traditional film stock was the norm. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone so far. When this was a new technology that only encompassed a few films, it made sense to distinguish — but in an age when somewhere between "most" and "very nearly all" films are now shot digitally, this crosses over into unmaintainability. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It was certainly defining when films did this back in the day (eg, Inland Empire), but it's lost all meaning now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:53, 7 April 2014 (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.