Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 9

< November 8	November 10 >

November 9

Category:Major League Baseball All-Star Game hosts

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 20#Category:Major League Baseball All-Star Game hosts. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not sure of the purpose of this category. It categorizes individual seasons of the teams who happened to host the All-Star game in that particular year. Otherwise, there is no relationship between the team of that season and the game itself. I think this is overcategorization with better information found in the article Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues and the Category:Major League Baseball All-Star Game -- Wolfer68 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a catagory documenting teams that hosted a respective Major League Baseball All-Star Game any diffrent than ones concerning American League and National League championship winners, divisional and wild card winners, and most importantly, World Series champions? TMC1982 (talk) 10:07 p.m., 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like all the difference in the world to me. No one refers to the 1992 San Diego Padres season as the Padres' "All-Star Game host season," whereas it is common to refer to the 1992 Toronto Blue Jays season as the Blue Jays' "World Series championship season". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator and my above comments. Not defining for a team's season. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A wonderful way to provide a means of navigation across All-Star game hosts. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (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:Football (soccer) in London

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 Category:Football (soccer) in London to Category:Football in London. --Xdamr^talk 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football (soccer) in London to Category:Football in London

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Football in England always means soccer, and soccer is rarely called anything but football. Hence the parent Category:Football in England and all its subcategories. We only use the disambiguating brackets in cases where both names are commopn and "football" alone would be ambiguous. I'm including the following subcategories in the nomination:

Grutness...wha? 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Matches main article too. Declan Clam (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know the use of football (soccer) is a contentious issue but it avoids any ambiguity. While the term football is used in the UK and London, the majority of English speaking countries use the term soccer. Just because the article is about London/English clubs doesn’t mean only people from there will what to check out this category. We should avoid the risk of being anglo-centric when reaching a decision. I also notice that several clubs or categorised in Football (soccer) clubs established in … Djln--Djln (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- London isn't in "the majority of English speaking countries" - it's in one of them which uses the term football - and using local usage is standard practice on Wikipedia. In any case, the majority of English speaking countries use the term football. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I understand Djln's objection, it has been the practise of Cfd to take into account only local usage of the English language. I do not think we can change this without changing a lot of the guidelines. So I'd say rename. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the majority of English speaking countries use the term soccer" - actually that isn't the case, as this graphic shows rather well. Declan Clam (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The map is inconclusive and inaccurate. The only countries with English as dominant language that uses term football is UK and Ireland (this should really be green for disputed). In all those countries highlighted in blue, English is not necessarily the dominant and/or only language. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right that the map is inaccurate - Australia and New Zealand both officially use the term football for the sport as well, as does much of the Pacific. And there are a considerable number of countries marked which do have English as their first language that use "football" - almost all of the Caribbean, to start with. As to Africa, English may not be the first language in many of those countries, but it is an official language and lingua franca -and football is used for the sport there. The only countries which use only "soccer" are the US, Canada, and Ireland. But none of this bears any relevance to the proposed change, since London is in a country which uses "football". Grutness...wha? 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djln, Please point out where (besides Ireland) the map is inaccurate, if not here then at least on its talk page. Though it would have to be inaccurate to quite some degree not to refute your assertion that the majority of English-speaking countries use the term "soccer". Possibly you hadn't realised that all the countries highlighted have English as an official language (and there are a couple omitted where English is semi-official(ish)). I'd be interested to know why not being the dominant/only language somehow kicks a country and its Anglophone population out of the family of English-speaking nations. Is the usage of the word "football" by someone from Ohio of inherently more worth than by that of someone from Madhya Pradesh?

Coming at it from the other side, I'm aware that "soccer" is an acceptable synonym in some of the countries highlighted as "football"-using (whereas it is archaic or unused in others), though as their official federations (on top of those of the “soccer”-using countries) are "X Football Association" rather than "... Soccer Association" I would say that those countries have voted "football". (And of course all this is, inexcusably, to forget the vast number of people who speak English though they live in countries that officially do not).

I appreciate that you want to avoid Anglo-centrism, but I think it can be agreed that neither FIFA, CAF nor the Olympics have any reason to be Anglo-centric, and they do not regard it as "soccer". So, neither should (or for the most part does) Wikipedia, unless there is a clear case for doing so (such as in Australia or the US), which I can't see here. I also have sympathy for your being distrustful of local usage as a guideline, but I simply cannot conceive of someone (from anywhere) checking out Category:Football in London and being disappointed to find Arsenal, Wembley Stadium, etc. and floundering as to where to find the West London Wildcats or (Xenu forgive them) the London Blitz. Declan Clam (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be bothered with this debate anymore, change them if really what to, life is too short Djln--Djln (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination. I would however support a rename to Category:Association football in London and Category:Association football in England if all similar cat pages were nominated
Support nom (or previous contributor's "Association Football" alternative. To deal with the problem of Americans seeking information on American Football in London, I would suggest the addition of suitable hatnote, pointing to the categories for other kinds of football. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename. I think it might be time to start adopting some universal rules for using "football (soccer)" rather than conforming to "local usage". The problem is that these categories can and are accessed by people beyond the "local area", so it makes sense to make them as unambiguous as possible. Renaming would have the helpful benefit of avoiding ENGVAR pissing matches—we could just have one standard to apply and it would help WP look like we actually had an idea of what a usage guide is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Whatever the conclusion re "English-speaking" countries, the vast majority of non-mother-tongue English speakers think of "football", and are puzzled by "soccer". Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2009 (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:United Methodist churches in the Pennsylvania

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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Methodist churches in the Pennsylvania to Category:United Methodist churches in Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Pennsylvania is not generally preceded by a "the". John Carter (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename for "the" obvious reason. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alansohn and couldn't have expressed it any better. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy ? Obvious mistake. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2009 (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:CFL locomotives

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 Category:CFL locomotives to Category:Chemins de fer luxembourgeois locomotives. --Xdamr^talk 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CFL locomotives to Category:Chemins de fer luxembourgeois locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand ambiguous abbreviation and match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. I thought this was a Canadian Football League team. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the Locomotives are a Las Vegas football team! ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes, that's why "locomotives" gave me football on the mind. I forgot about that new league. Didn't Las Vegas have a CFL team at one point? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Las Vegas Posse. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Chemins de fer luxembourgeois locomotives to match actual title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CFL is a proper name, it should be capitalized, the suggested title is generic, covering all railway locomotives in/of Luxembourg 65.94.252.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment On the CFD category page notice it is captialised as Category:Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois locomotives. Iain Bell (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I changed the name in the nomination here based on the comment by Alansohn. I blindly thought that he had verified this and I had again missed a redirect. In any case, Category:Chemins de fer luxembourgeois locomotives or Category:Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois locomotives is fine by me once the grammar experts decide which is correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (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:NSB locomotives

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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NSB locomotives to Category:Norges Statsbaner locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand ambiguous abbreviation and match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (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:Polskie Koleje Państwowe

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 per nom. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe to Category:Polish State Railways

Category:Polskie Koleje Państwowe people to Category:Polish State Railways people

Category:PKP locomotives to Category:Polish State Railways locomotives

Category:PKP diesel locomotives to Category:Polish State Railways diesel locomotives

Category:PKP electric locomotives to Category:Polish State Railways electric locomotives

Category:PKP steam locomotives to Category:Polish State Railways steam locomotives

Category:PKP electric multiple units to Category:Polish State Railways electric multiple units

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the main article. This name is the Polish spelling and exists as an article redirect. In some of the nominations PKP is expanded to the spelling used by the article since PKP is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Most European national railway companies are known by their initial letters (of their name in their native language). While I would expect a translation for a name written in a non-latin script, I feel we should be consistent and use the native spelling where possible. If you don’t like the abbreviation, then expand PKP to Polskie Koleje Państwowe. Iain Bell (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Matching to the main article makes the most sense here. Abbreviations are avoided in category names and "Polskie Koleje Państwowe" is not the name of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 18 November 2009 (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:Turkish Railways diesel locomotives

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 per nom. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turkish Railways diesel locomotives to Category:Turkish State Railways diesel locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fix the name to match the parent article. I'll note that the category introduction says Turkish Republic Railways but that is a redirect to Turkish State Railways. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons stated in discussion below on TCDD rolling stock. Iain Bell (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counter propose renaming Category:Turkish Railways diesel locomotives to Category:TCDD diesel locomotives to match the parent Category:TCDD locomotives Iain Bell (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Matching to the main article makes the most sense here. Abbreviations are avoided in category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 18 November 2009 (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.

Roman magistri equitum

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:Ancient Roman Masters of the Horse. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Just up for renaming, with the result that There is consensus to rename, with no consensus as to what the new name should be. Can be remoninated at any time. What is consensus should be done; so let's get rid of the grammatical error, and discuss the perfect name and structure at another time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Roman Magistri Equitum, with the sole aim of correcting the grammatical error and avoiding the surprisingly contentious issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (I'd prefer the capitalization Roman magistri equitum.) This looks good to the eyes of this classicist, is a clear improvement and provides needed first-aid, and should probably prove worthy of being more than a mere placeholder. Wareh (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ancient Roman Masters of the Horse. This is a Roman category; setting up an overall "Masters of the Horse" category above it would be a good idea, which we do not need to approve here. Oddly enough, my views haven't changed in the 2 days since I commented at the last debate, where this was the rename with the most support, and no clear arguments against. Failing that, just correct the grammar per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus achieved? Change the abominable Magister Equitums to magistri equitum. There appears to be a consensus on correcting this immediately. Other issues can be introduced in new discussions as appropriate after this credibility-undermining error is addressed as speedily as possible. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll support that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I prefer Category:Ancient Roman Masters of the Horse, because this is the English WP, not Latin WP, and Latin is hardly taught in schools today. Neverhteless, I would be happy with either alternative. The present form is an abomination, and MUST be changed to something. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ancient Roman Masters of the Horse, then, if that will finally get this done. I prefer Category:Masters of the Horse in Ancient Rome (on analogy with a hypothetical Category:Masters of the Horse in the United Kingdom, but if we can just get this changed to something, I'll surrender the point. Briefly: "Roman" used to modify a person can be taken as indicating ethnicity or origin; when Constantine revived the long-disused title of magister equitum (for a rather different office than it was in the Republic), many officials in this later imperial government were not Roman, but rather Greek, Gallic, etc. So the phrase "in ancient Rome" is meant to place the office within the political entity, and not serve as a description of personal ethnicity. By simply correcting the Latin error, however, the intention was to put off discussion of the best phrasing for another time. SInce a speedy correction of the Latin has not occurred, I don't suppose it matters. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy with the latest suggestion. I repeat that something must be done. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2009 (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:Washington Senators (1961-1971) 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington Senators (1961-1971) players to Category:Washington Senators (1961–1971) players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To comply with WP:DASH, date ranges should have endashes (–) instead of hyphens (-). Mm40 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to use standard dash formatting. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (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:Turkish railways railcar

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 per nom. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turkish railways railcar to Category:Turkish State Railways railcars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the grandparent Category:Turkish State Railways and fix the odd singular name. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent category and use proper pluralization. Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons stated in discussion below on TCDD rolling stock. Iain Bell (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counter propose renaming Category:Turkish railways railcar to Category:TCDD railcars to match the parent Category:TCDD rolling stock Iain Bell (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Matching to the main article makes the most sense here. Abbreviations are avoided in category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 18 November 2009 (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:TCDD rolling stock

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 per nom. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TCDD rolling stock to Category:Turkish State Railways rolling stock

Category:TCDD multiple units to Category:Turkish State Railways multiple units

Category:TCDD locomotives to Category:Turkish State Railways locomotives

Category:TCDD steam locomotives to Category:Turkish State Railways steam locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand Turkish abbreviation and to match the name of the lead article Turkish State Railways and parent category Category:Turkish State Railways. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Most European national railway companies are known by their initial letters (of their name in their native language). While I would expect a translation for a name written in a non-latin script, I feel we should be consistent and use the native spelling where possible. If you don’t like the abbreviation, then Category:Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demiryolları rolling stock (etc), would be the best choice. Iain Bell (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should rename using a name that is not even used for the main article? Is there any guideline that supports that position? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Matching to the main article makes the most sense here. Abbreviations are avoided in category names. The article is not at "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demiryolları" (thank goodness). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 18 November 2009 (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:Locomotives of the New York Central Railroad

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: already done? — ξ ^xplicit 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Locomotives of the New York Central Railroad to Category:New York Central Railroad locomotives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match form in the parents Category:Locomotives by railway and Category:Locomotives of the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match standard naming convention of parent categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (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 international airports without United States border preclearance

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. I created a List of Canadian international airports without United States border preclearance from the category's contents, without judgment as to the ultimate fate of that list. A couple participants below suggested also deleting and listifying Category:Canadian airports with United States border preclearance, but as that category was not tagged with a CFD notice, it could not be considered here and will need to be listed separately. postdlf (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think it is a good idea to categorize things by what they lack. Category:Canadian airports with United States border preclearance exists, but I don't see a need to categorize the international Canadian airports that don't have preclearance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all of B and C belong to A, and C = A AND NOT(B), and A and B exist, then so should C. (feel free to correct my syntax before pointing out mistakes) However, I wish that C were autogenerated (or autogenerateable). The distinction between having and lacking in this category is not so great. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem being not all airports in Canada are international airports. However, I look forward to Category:Americans who are not lawyers, Category:Cities that are not in Thailand, and Category:Films not made in 2006. They can join the venerable Category:Villages in Oxfordshire without Lamp Posts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would someone be subdividing "Canadian international airports" 8 to 36 when there is no category Category:Canadian international airports? Merge Category:Canadian international airports without United States border preclearance & Category:Canadian airports with United States border preclearance into Category:Canadian international airports. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No idea. Sometimes editors put the cart before the horse, I guess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per wp:bias I'd say this is real overcategorisation. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a meaningful way of grouping these airport articles for navigation. I do agree that these should be listed in a Category:Canadian international airports and that there should be a Category:Canadian international airports with United States border preclearance (or equivalent) as a subcategory. Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Canadian international airports and make Category:Canadian airports with United States border preclearance a subcat of this one. Then make this one a subcat of Category:Airports in Canada. Short version - keep the "with" and rename the "without" to include the rest. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both preclearance w/ and w/o categories, and listify them. I don't see why these two categories even exist. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete both categories. I can see value in Wikipedia having this information — but the category system isn't the place to present it. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete -- preferably as two sections of the same List article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2009 (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.

Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia

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 Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia. Category:Slovenian victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia was never tagged with a CFD notice; please list it separately. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale:

Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia

Category:Slovenian victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia

The above categories are mostly or wholly subjective; created by an editor with a political agenda (in poor English, as well) filled entirely with political activists/figures who did their own share of repressing in the complex mix of the former Yugoslavia. [email protected] (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such categories should require fairly stringent reliable sourcing requirements. Is there such a rule? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NPOV. Which is to say that the answer to SmokeyJoe's question is: not that I am aware of. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep No valid reason provided for deletion. Whether a particular editor worked on this category is not relevant to the validity of facts the category represents. Nothing prohibits victims from also being victimizers. Part of an accepted pattern found in its parent Category:Victims of political repression by country Hmains (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This category and its contents are completely subjective. If the parent category (Category:Victims of political repression by country) is insufficient for the needs of the creator of this category that does not necessitate or legitimize customized new categories to meet the needs of particular editors (which I would daresay are political apologetics). [email protected] (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per NPOV issues and recent deletion of similar "victims of political repressions" categories for other countries. Here and here, for reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 16 November 2009 (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.

Lithuanian navy ships

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 all except Category:Minesweepers of the Lithuanian Naval Force and Category:Minesweepers of Lithuania. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Total overkill. There were 13 categories to categorize 4 pages (Flyvefisken class patrol vessel, HDMS Flyvefisken (P550), HNoMS Vidar (N52) & Vidar class minesweeper - and I would make an argument articles about ship classes don't belong). Lithuanian Naval Force has less than 20 ships total. All of them can comfortably rest in category:Ships of the Lithuanian Naval Force. Renata (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but I think the nominator means merge. All ships should be covered by wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as part of structure. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as part of the overall structure of vessels by type across nations. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the structure needs to be revised as having 13 categories for 4 articles is ridiculous by any standard. Last time I checked, categories are supposed to be useful navigational tools and not just there for the sake of themselves or some "structure". Renata (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, I only count eleven categories in the nomination, one of which, Category:Minesweepers of the Lithuanian Naval Force is listed twice. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed the duplicate. Renata (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Debresser and Alansohn, except delete Category:Minesweepers of the Lithuanian Naval Force (which is empty) and Category:Minesweepers of Lithuania (which only contains the first empty category). (Even though I created this pair of categories, I thought it might not be best to tag them with {{db-g7}} since they have been listed here.)
Also, to avoid any appearance of trying to circumvent the CFD process, I've added two more just-created categories that would, in my view, have been nominated had they existed when the nomination was prepared. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anybody cares to at least attempt to justify 13 categories for 4 articles? Renata (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that your count can't include the 2 categories I added after you made this nomination, what 13 categories are you referring to? Are there others that you either (1) tagged and didn't list here or (2) didn't tag? I'm confused about which thirteen. Also, if you'll check, there are more than just 4 articles in these categories (and I'm not counting redirects, either).
  - As far as justifying, I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that Debresser, Alansohn, Benea, and myself have all mentioned that these are standard categories that are a part of the existing, consensus category structure for classifying ships by type, by nation, and by navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Belhalla, as part of the overall structuring scheme standardised across nations and navies. Benea (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (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:Filipino Animation

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 20#Category:Filipino Animation. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Filipino Animation to Category:Philippine animation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Filipino" generally refers to people from the Philippines. For non-people, the usual adjective is "Philippine". Also changing capitalization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in all details per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename to Category:Filipino animation The parent Category:Animation by country uses demonyms (e.g., we have Category:American animation, not Category:United States animation) and the preferred demonym listed at Phillippines is "Filipino". Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No opinion on the nomination one way or the other, but I see "Philippine" as analogous to "American". — Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alansohn, a demonym is "a name for a resident of a locality which is derived from the name of the particular locality". It applies to people. This category does not call for a demonym, because animation is not people. That's why we have, e.g., Category:Philippine law rather than Category:Filipino law. I agree with Bellhalla that "American" is both a demonym and can also be used as an adjective to describe non-people things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good Olfactory, far more relevantly, the demonym of "Filipino" is used, even where not referring to people. See Category:Arts in the Philippines, where the demonym prevails over "Phillipine". Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it's wrong at worst; extremely clumsy/imprecise at best. Sorry, but it is. Dictionaries acknowledge that "Filipino" has been extended to non-persons in some instances, but that pretty much just recognises the fact that people who don't know any better have made a mistake that people from the Philippines resent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Filipino animation. "Filipino" is the prevalent form in Category:Filipino culture, although both forms are used inconsistently. Personally, I associate "Philippine" with topics relating to the country (e.g. law, government, economy) and "Filipino" with cultural topics (arts, religion, society) of which this is an example.- choster 18:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that correct usage, though? Or should these all be changed? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (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.