Reluctant Delete. Replace with list, either embedded or separate. I don't agree with the nom. that this is over-categorization, certainly not that all non-defining categories are implicitly over-categorizing, or even that over-categorization is currently a problem for these cities (it appears not for the assumed worst-cases of Berlin, Bremen, Dresden and Hamburg). However there does seem to be some discontinuity of scales here. Is there an Axis-occupied European city that wouldn't warrant Stolpersteine? Also, is recording Stolpersteine at the city level useful? It's not useful to indicate "Cities that warrant Stolpersteine" and the scale is wrong for "Where to find Stolpersteine". At most it can be "Cities that have as yet accepted the Stolpersteine project". Whilst finding the Stolpersteine project a fascinating and worthy goal to make this enormous incomprehensible horror accessible and memorable at the human level, I think it's best documented in list format, and that each list entry needs to be more geographically specific than just a city. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this category because as I was putting articles in the Stolpersteine category, it seemed to me that having cities and people together didn't really work. There is no current "list of the cities" anywhere. What the Stolperstein article has is a very short selection of some of the cities where they can be found. I think the suggestion of a list format is good, so if this gets deleted, I'll just create a list page. There are over 20,000 Stolpersteine in at least six countries. The number of Stolpersteine per city varies from under a dozen to several thousand, though most cities have several dozen to a couple of hundred. Btw, there are places and people who are opposed to them. The Nazis used to take Jewish grave stones and make sidewalks with them, so for some people, a memorial that may be walked on is inappropriate. Marrante (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a defining characteristic of these cities. A list in Stolperstein (or a separate list-article, if needed due to the length of the full list) of the locations of Stolpersteine should suffice for both users and contributors. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Created by the same person who started Category:Solar water pumping, nominated below, this category has but one article, Masdar City, a planned city that is intended to derive all its power from renewable sources, should it ever be built. The first problem is that it is not supposed to be powered solely by solar and therefore it is misleading to call it so. The second is that it is highly unlikely that we will ever have entire cities powered solely by solar or other renewables in the foreseeable future, so this is also destined to be WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A solar related category unrelated to Nopetro for a change, this category contains but one article, Solar-powered pump and I see no others that may fit at this time. Delete per WP:OC#SMALL until such time as we may have multiple articles related to solar pumping. I don't believe an upmerge is necessary, as the sole article is already adequately categorized elsewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Was notified of this discussion as I created the category years ago while tidying up American Musical Groups. This is clearly a more appropriate name and has my support. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another underpopulated category from Nopetro, a Solar charger is a device which "employs solar energy to supply electricity to devices or charge batteries. They are generally portable." The only contents of this category is the main article and Q-Cells, a company whose core business is expressly described as not about the manufacture of solar chargers. Delete/upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL until such time as we have valid contents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Con artists" has a much higher number of Google entries than "Confidence tricksters" (643,000 v 18,100). Also there is already subcategory Category:Fictional con artists so renaming would provide consistency.--Penbat (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The associated articles are in a muddle and i intend to straighten them out by creating a new con artists article (I have a sandbox version in preparation at User:Penbat/con artists) and straightening out existing article confidence trick by incorporating the content of list of confidence tricks.
Oppose – 'con artist' is a slang term for 'Confidence trickster' and should not be used in the name of any category or article. Indeed I would prefer a more formal word than 'trickster' but can't think of one offhand. (The UK term is con man. Trickster sounds American to me, but comprehensible. Confidence trick is a standard UK phrase.) Occuli (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is pejorative to dismiss "con artists" as being fringe "slang" when it has over 35 times the number of Google entries than "confidence tricksters". For the singular forms "con artist" and "confidence trickster" the ratio is even more enormous 1,620,000 v 24,400 - a ratio of over 66.
Also your stance completely contravenes Wikipedia's own naming conventions:
"Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article."
"Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."
There are issues with "con man":
it has fewer Google hits than "con artist" (1,130,000 v 1,620,000)
it has inherent gender bias issues
i live in the UK and i have no problem with "con artist" instead of "con man" and hear "con artist" used just as much.
'Con artist' is a slang term, as is 'con man'. As is often the case these informal slang terms are in common use, and can of course be used as redirects (as they already are) to a more formal encyclopaedic name suitable for an article (or category). Is a wikipedia reader in China likely to know that a 'con artist' is a fraudster rather than a painter of some sort? Occuli (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even in Google scholar (http://scholar.google.com) "con artists" beats "confidence tricksters" by a big margin, 5,560 v 765, which completely reinforces the Wikipedia naming convention which you have chosen to ignore. Why are we particularly concerned about a Chinese with poor English (who should theoretically have their own Chinese version of Wikipedia) when in the English speaking world the use of the word "con artist" beats the use of the word "confidence trickster" by a vast margin. It is the most widely used expression for confidence trickster that the highest percentage of the population would be familiar with. Even for somebody not too familiar with the expression "con artist" i think would understand it as an expression and not specifically to do with artists. The expression "confidence trickster" isnt intrinsically clear what it means anyway.--Penbat (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you living on another planet ? There is no better objective assessment of popular usage that i know of than than Google. You havent come up with any other viable objective way of judging popularity. As "con artist" is vastly more popular on Google, even on Google Scholar, it hardly seems likely that you can support your case with anything else. Also your stance completely contradicts Wikipedia naming conventions Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names which take precedence over your idiosyncratic views. --Penbat (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"artist" in the expression "con artist" is used in a metaphorical sense. It is very common, for example "spine" in the context of a book is used in a metaphorical sense.--Penbat (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current name. As a native speaker of American English, I am much more familiar with the term "con artist" than I am with "confidence trickster." However, as Penbat has explained at length, "con artist" is a slang term that is unlikely to be readily understood by people unfamiliar with the idiom, while "confidence trickster" should make sense to anyone who reads the dictionary definitions of the constituent words. --Orlady (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Artist" gives them a spurious sound of respectibility. "Con trick" is good British English, but is a slangy abbreviation. Slang tends to be regional in the sense that it is not common to all versions of English. The present name is clear and non-slangy, even if Con Artist gets more Ghits. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most companies lease office space rather than own it now. And, increasingly, companies sponsor different stadiums and other buildings. Also,there has been a rapid growth in new article about historic buildings that had a previous relationship with the company. All of this means that most of the articles in the sub-cats are no longer technically "owned" but otherwise associated. This renaming reflects the original intent of grouping building articls by company while being more accurate. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I have no real interest to keep this category (keep was my first batle cry; it passed). But there are some concerns to be addressed:
Is it manageable, at all, either in present meaning or as proposed by RevelationDirect? Practically every building has owner(s), practically none are categorized.
The Habsburg example shows that "by company" is only a subset of "by owner" (other owners being private people, families, governments and municipalities etc.). East of Borschov (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
response: You're right, renaming the category as I proposed would preclude using it for palaces owned by a royal family since they're not a company. If you look at the current usage though, it's strictly corporate: AT&T, British Telecom, Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, Mayo Clinic, McDonald's, Pepsico and Royal Dutch Shell. There is a Category:Houses in the United States by family that could be expanded to other countries to cover your Hapsburg example.RevelationDirect (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Premier is totally and completely subjective. No need to merge since the articles already are in appropriate festival categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Another essentially empty category from banned user Mac, now operating as Nopetro and Nudecline. The category contains four articles. Two on electric car companies that plan to lease rather than sell the battery to their prospective car buyers, as well as the tangentially related Charging station and Electric vehicle battery articles. Once again, I do not believe we have the makings of a useful category at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my answer is: because he could. Because the Wikipedia community continues to allow him to create dozens of such categories, year after year, under a variety of user IDs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. WP:NEO. Though "battery" and "leasing" and the combination is a clear concept, it is not a well-established one. In any case, not enough notable subjects are strongly identified specifically with the concept yet to have this. (The current category contents only prove this.) May be a different situation in a few years. --Closeapple (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A Nopetro category, rename to match main article. This is not a category about different types of conversions, but about the process and industry as a whole. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I am considered a template to ease the burden of supporting the removal or renaming (per Shawn in Montreal) of all these ill-advised Nopetro creations. Occuli (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cities and towns claimed by China and India
Support -- I have opposed the move to populated places, but in this case it is highly appropriate. This presumably relates to areas of India occupied by China in the 1960s. I suspect that most settlemtns in the areas are no more than villages, and only "cities" in the sense in which the term is used in US. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article is at IOS (Apple) and there is a very famous and longstanding IOS from CISCO, which is the primary usage of the term for software, and this one isn't (yet). This is a highly ambiguous name and needs to be changed. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename - I appreciate the desire to keep up to date with companies changing their product line names, but in a case where it conflicts with many similar articles, I agree that this should be disambiguated. jheivtalkcontribs20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category by Nopetro contains but one article, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which announced in 2008 that it has a major stake in "Think North America," a venture to sell Think Global electric cars in North America. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is an investor, they're not providing buyers with financing, as the title suggests. It's misleading and a case of WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#TRIVIA. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; no appropriate articles (i.e. those surpassing WP:OC#TRIVIA connection) on Wikipedia at all for this category, and no evidence there will be in the near future. --Closeapple (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: Here's another one from banned User:Mac. I've tried to adjust the sub- and parent categories to make some sense. I had also started to remove some of the more egregious examples of miscategorization, such as Copenhagen, but re-added them so others can see what we have in this cat. Basically, Mac/Nopetro has created a myriad of electricity related categories. In this one, we just don't have a critical mass of articles about the vehicle-to-grid technology. What we do have are generally articles where the creator wants to point out that a company, country, city, etc. has some association with this technology. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (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:Renewable electromobility
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: Here's one from the Nopetro sock account that again falls into the category of a nice idea with no actual content. It's an intersection category of Renewable electricity and sustainable transport -- but I cannot see anything that doesn't fit better under the parent cats and I think it's unlikely we'll ever be able to populate a category such as this. Delete until such time as we do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2010 (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.
