Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2

[edit]

Members of the Scottish Parliament

[edit]
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 Option A. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming either:
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Both options replace the word "from" with "for". This conforms with both common and official usage (see this example), and clarifies that this is a category of MSPs by where they were elected. The current wording be read as including MSPs who had lived in the relevant constituencies, but represented somewhere entirely different. It matches two similar sets of changes for United Kingdom Members of Parliament: 1 and 2
Option 2 goes a little further by replacing "Foo constituencies" with "constituencies in Foo". This clarifies that the grouping is by geographical scope, rather than by whether the constituency includes "Foo" in its title.
I have no particular preference between the two options, but would like to get rid of that word "from". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Scotland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How useful are these categories anyway? eg is there a proper definition of what makes an "Aberdeen constituency"? Is it any constituency that includes some of the city of Aberdeen or Aberdeen city council area, even if most of the constituency is in a different council area? I think it would be more useful to have categories for members by electoral region, eg North East Scotland, Lothian, Glasgow etc. Then these categories would actually cover all of Scotland, and could also include MSPs elected on the additional member system. --Vclaw (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that these categories are important in grouping the political representatives of these cities.
    However, a set of similar categories by electoral region seems like a very good idea. These city categories could be subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Some time ago, some one started categorising UK (or predecessors) MPs for English constituencies by the county where the constituency was. Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies currently has 3 sub-cats for in that format by county; two in the format "Cumbria MPs" (presumably similar - rather than based on local origin); one for Liverpool constituencies and one each for two specific constituencies - Hackney and Cambridge University. Do we really want to go down the road of splitting the categories to this extent? It needs to be born in mind that some MPs sat for several constituencies in the course of their career. I make this point in relation to UK MPs, because the issue will be much larger with them than for a Scottish Parliament that is now a mere 13 years old. Every constituecny has an article that lists all the people who have represneted it. This is much more useful than a category, which will only place the people in alphabetic order. I therefore wonder whether the answer might not be fell the whole tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A - as creator, I had missed that the UK cats had been renamed "from" to "for", otherwise I would have followed the precedent. Really ought to have been a Speedy. In reply to Peterkingiron: these cats are part of the cat trees of each city, eg. if you look at the Edinburgh one (which is part of a large pattern, eg. see Category:Politicians from Cook County, Illinois, Category:Politicians from Chicago, Illinois, Category:Politicians from Dublin (city), etc, etc, etc), it contains sub-cats for councillors (incl Provosts), MPs and MSPs, and will also be populated with the Burgh Commissioners (MPs) for Edinburgh who sat in the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament, as and when we get round to working on that vast topic. In reply to Vclaw: I wholeheartedly agree that it would be "useful to have categories for members by electoral region, eg North East Scotland, Lothian, Glasgow etc.", so feel free! The existence of these 4 city cats does not preclude the creation of regional parent cats, of which these would be sub-cats. Not everything as Wikipedia has to be top-down. In fact, in my experience the best work is done at the micro-level, and overarching article topics, categories, lists, templates etc are often horrific messes that nobody ever seems to have the time to tackle. Eg, look at the huge number of FA articles that have "importance=low" on their WikiProject boxes, and then look at a huge and vastly important topic like English law, which is covered here at Wikipedia by an article that is really no more that a puffed-up, unloved stub (to the point that we really ought to be embarrassed). I digress. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But how are those categories defined? Which constituencies do they include? What sources are you using? --Vclaw (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Err... you want me to provide a "source" proving that Glasgow Kelvin is in Glasgow? I feel the urge to back away slowly. What next, do I have to provide a "source" proving that the Pope is a Catholic? In the great, historic conflict between good old fashioned common sense and the School of Making Things Harder Than They Really Are, I cannot help but feel that Wikipedia tends to prefer the latter philosophy.--Mais oui! (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2012 (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:Oil and gas companies of China

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It the moment, this category covers both—oil and gas companies. At the same time, more specific category:Oil companies of China. To avoid confusion, a factual split between these companies was carried out and at the moment the categories includes companies having natural gas operations while companies with oil operations are categorized in the category:Oil companies of China. Therefore, the category needs renaming. As an alternative to renaming, category:Oil companies of China may be merged back into this category. However, I think that we have enough Chinese companies to have two more specific categories instead of one more general category. Beagel (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. No, at the moment this proposal concerns Chinese category only. Maybe one day there would be need for the overall split but at the moment I do not think this is necessary. My proposal based also on the similar precedent some year ago when the proposal was to merge Category:Oil companies of South Korea back to Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea but the consensus was keep both categories with renaming Category:Oil and gas companies of South Korea to Category:Natural gas companies of South Korea. Beagel (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment most countries have too few company entries to be worth splitting between oil and natural gas, however pleasing that might be. Hmains (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No view here but in many countries the same companies deal with both gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons. Many are multinationals. If this is implemented, the process should not be spread wider. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. AFAICS, the pattern is that prospecting for and extracting oil is largely done by the same companies as do the prospecting and extraction of oil. However, there is much less overlap in the distribution methods of the two products, so there tends to be a clearer division at the distribution level. It seems that the split leads to dual-categorisation of exploration and production companies, and I'm not persuaded that this is helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these two types of companies overlap so much we might as well have one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (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:Redirects from EPs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There's no need to distinguish which album type a redirect is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 2 November 2012 (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:Live albums recorded in Canada

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussion (1 and 2), these albums by recording location categories should only contain subcategories down to notable venues (e.g. Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios), not generic places. Since this has no subcategories of notable venues, there is no scheme to keep. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 2 November 2012 (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:Albums by format

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We've already deleted categories such as Albums released only digitally with the rationale that the format upon which an album is released is irrelevant and trivial for categorizing. I'm honestly a bit torn, but if we're going to do some formats, we should do all formats. Unless someone wants to get cracking on Category:Albums released on wax cylinder and Category:Albums released on Compact Disc, then we should delete this scheme.—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am the creator of the parent category, but I didn't create the entire scheme myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 2 November 2012 (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:Double albums

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unless we categorize albums by format (which we generally don't--see my other CfDs above), then this is a meaningless designation. Something may take two LPs and one CD, two CDs and three LPs, one continuous digital stream, etc. Some editions have a bonus disc, some are compact versions of three disc albums. The fact that a set of musical recordings takes up two or three pieces of a certain type of media is trivial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 2 November 2012 (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:Economists of innovation

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Speedy criteria C2C. The parent category (Category:Economists by area of research) lists as Foo economists. Bob247 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2012 (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.

Chinese politicians by province

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Procedural relisting. This is a procedural relisting of the most of the categories discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 26#Category:Gansu_politicians.
The nomination was a little unclear about the fact that it was proposed to rename more than one category, so while there was a consensus there to rename Category:Gansu politicians to Category:Politicians from Gansu, it is not clear that there was a consensus to rename the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion relisted below:
Nominator's rationale: Please see below for "umbrella" reasons. --Nlu (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be uniformity in the naming geographical subcategories of Category:Chinese politicians. I would like a general discussion on the issue, and, while as I explain below, I would prefer "Politicians from <province/city>," if the discussion results in "<Province/city> politicians," I will accept that; consistency is more important, regardless. I am planning on creating further geographic subcategories for the politicians category after this discussion results in a consensus, and we definitely need to decide on this before I can do that. (I am leaving Hong Kong and Macau off the discussion; those involve even more complicated category trees which I have insufficient expertise/confidence to tackle at the moment, and is probably better driven by Wikipedians with greater familiarity with those two SARs.)

Currently, the geographic subcategories that fall under Category:Chinese politicians are named in two different types. These are:

Under "Politicians from <province/city>":
Under "<Province> politicians":

A number of provinces/other provincial level entities never had such categories created either by me or anyone else, presumably due to the uncertainty due to the inconsistency in the category names. (Chongqing, Fujian, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jilin, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Tianjin, Tibet (although that may be another whole can of worms), Xinjiang, and Zhejiang.)

In my opinion, "Politicians from <province/city>" is a better formulation. It is less ambiguous and less POV. Further, while "<Province> politicians" may not sound awkward, I think "<City> politicians" begins to sound awkward -- there's something that doesn't quite feel right when you begin to talk about "Tianjin politicians" or "Chongqing politicians" (or even smaller divisions, as it may reasonably become necessary given the mass population that China has). (See also the Category:Politicians by city hierarchy.) But again, consistency is more important, and I'd be happy to abide whatever the consensus is. --Nlu (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (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:Perth Waterfront

[edit]
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: Speedy rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term is not a proper noun, so "waterfront" should not be capitalised. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2012 (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:Montenegro media stubs

[edit]
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 category to Category:Mass media stubs and Category:Montenegro stubs; merge {{Montenegro-film-director-stub}} to Category:Montenegrin people stubs; keep templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Insufficient article count. Keep template, but upmerge to Category:Mass media stubs and Category:Montenegro stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2012 (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:Australia media stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use demonym. Dawynn (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2012 (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.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is an entire tree for gay male media leading down to this, but I have no idea why. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is indeed part of a category tree under Category:Gay (male) media. If this particular category is to be merged, then it should be merged to both parents (i.e. Category:Gay-related television programs and Category:American LGBT-related television programs).
    However, the nominator's rationale offers no reason for merging this particular category when he thinks its parent is also a bad idea, so rather than correct this merge I will oppose it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport as per nominator's rationale. Nymf hideliho! 09:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as with the similar categories for lesbian-related TV series (nominated on Nov. 4) this category violates WP:CATGRS because there is no indication that homosexual males were or are generally treated significantly differently than how homosexual females are or were. The only significant difference is that in the past, lesbians were sometimes but not usually allowed to be shown being slightly more physically intimate than gay men were but that distinction has been breaking down as far back as the last season of Will & Grace. This is distinguished from other forms of gay-related media (but not for all forms of gay-related media). For example gay-interest and lesbian-interest magazines are often radically different in style and content. The rest of this gendered category tree is not, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, germane to this discussion and should be looked at as well. Buck Winston (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and note that it refers to articles and various other types of pages, but not to categories.
    There are several good reasons for this. Firstly, categories are constructed where possible as consistent series; the speedy criteria are largely based on consistency of series, and there are long-standing guidelines such as WP:SMALLCAT which specifically acknowledge that series of categories need to be treated differently.
    If the nominator believes that American gay-related television programs should not be separated from other gay-related TV shows, then might be a point to this nomination. But that is not what the nominator argues. The case made is a general one that there there is no need to distinguish gay male TV shows from LGBT-related shows; no argument is made that American shows are an exception to the generality.
    Removing only the American category creates an anomaly in categorisation, whereby TV shows can be categorised as "nationality gay male" so long as they are not American. Creating unjustified exceptions like this simply messes up the category tree, and makes it harder for editors to categorise articles properly and consistently.
    As an illustration of the folly of this nomination, please note that if the merger was carried outa s proposed, every one of the articles could immediately be recategorised in Category:Gay-related television programs. So what would this merger have achieved? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently three Fooian gay-related programs categories and they are all up for deletion or merger as are their lesbian-related counterparts. At this time it appears that each of those nominations is going to result in the removal of the category either through deletion or merger. If the rest of this rudimentary tree were not already nominated for deletion then your point about an anomaly would be valid. But the point is addressed through the remaining nominations. Much of the rest of the "gay-related" and "lesbian-related" category structure, in large measure the creation of a single editor, is on its way to being dismantled. It would have been nice if they'd all been nominated at once but they weren't. That they weren't isn't a reason to keep a bad category around. Buck Winston (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just checked. There are two other currently-open discussions, on CFD Nov 4 and CFD Nov 5. Both of them were opened by you.
    It is highly disruptive to have three separate discussions on these categories, because none of the nominations make any argument that there is a particular issue relating to one particular country. At best that leads to the discussion being replicated in triplicate, which is a pointless and disruptive waste of the time and energy of editors; at worst it leads to selective participation, with possibility of inconsistent outcomes.
    The two newer nominations have been opened by Buck Winston, to whom I am replying here ... but even when coming back to this discussion to repky, Buck didn't even bother to link to those other discussions which he had opened. This sort of non-disclosure of unnecessarily-split discussions is highly disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? First off, I did link the November 4 discussion in my first comment to this debate. Not my fault if you failed to notice it. Second, the reason I gave for my !vote here is the same as my reason for nominating the other two categories. Third, the two additional discussions were opened on different days because one of the categories did not exist until November 5, something you might have checked on before throwing shade. I'm good, but not even I can be expected to nominate categories for deletion before someone makes them.
  • I do not appreciate the combative and disrespectful tone you're taking. I have acted completely appropriately in discussing this category and in nominating and discussing the others. In future I expect to be treated with the same courtesy that I have extended to you.
  • The reason this category should be merged is exactly as I said. There is no body of evidence that indicates that gay-related series in the United States are substantively different from how American television treats the rest of the LGBT acronym. Did you have some comment on that or did you just want to bitch about process and defame people instead? Buck Winston (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2012 (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:Neighbourhoods in Crawley

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other recently standardized subcategories of Category:Neighbourhoods in England. All similar categories were renamed in this nomination.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not merely current local government usage; they have been called neighbourhoods since they were created with the founding of the New Town in 1947, and were referred to as such from the time the Master Plan was designed. Online info on this is scanty (the Victoria County History has some though), but all book sources (including but not limited to those cited at Crawley) use the term exclusively. Simply put, "neighbourhoods" in the context of Crawley has a specific, discrete meaning that is unrelated to the general use of the term. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- as a New Town, I can conceive that Crawley was planned as a series of "Neighbourhoods". If these are adequately defined, they could form the basis of a category scheme. This would be an exception, due to an exceptional structure. Generally in UK, neighbourhoods are undefined and liable to be flexible in extent: estate agents will claim that a place is in a popular or affluent area, when historically it is beyond (say) the ancient parish boundary; I am thinking of an example there this has occurred locally. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the common name (and actually the official names since the formation of a new town) for parts of Crawley are "Neighbourhoods" per Hassocks5489, support 5489s suggestion that the crawley neighbourhoods cat is made a subcat of crawley areas. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2012 (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:Gangnam-gu

[edit]
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 the other "gu" categories can be speedily nominated for renaming per this decision.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what is the point of nominating just this one category? Why not nominate them all, since they all violate the convention, especially since closing CfDs seems to be out of fashion? - choster (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (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:ENGREF alumni

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Alumni of the French National School of Forestry. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication of Category:Alumni of the French National School of Forestry. Bob247 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2012 (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:Law enforcement of the San Francisco Bay Area

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on deletion (though this could be proposed in a new nomination); rename for now to satisfy convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per general consensus: no categories are "law enforcement of Foo", while many are "law enforcement in Foo" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2012 (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:Million Dollar Quartet members

[edit]
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No such quartet ever existed, it was only a name given to a recording of an impromptu jam session which is not definitive for these musicians, who are individually notable. They were already notable before this "quartet" existed. It's not definitive because it never truly existed. The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale makes no sense. How does the existence of the article necessitate the category? The categorization is trivial and the question of whether such a "quartet" ever existed is not arbitrary. The members' individual notability did not derive from being in said "quartet," the "quartet," in which none of them ever claimed membership, is notable only because of them. This is not arbitrary, it is simple fact that the quartet was only named afterward, and only for purposes of marketing the recording. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT: 'Small with no potential for growth: Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members'. This is a perfect example. (As noted above, WP:OC#PERF probably applies as well.) Simply put, there's no need for this category to link together these four musicians as the 'Million Dollar Quartet'; they're already described as such in their articles and the Quartet's article. This category adds nothing. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Category:Musicians by band is not relevant because, as I and others have said, there never was a "band". This was merely a title made up for the release of the recordings. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:45, 3 November 2012 (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.

various subdivision categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES - regardless of their title, these categories are essentially CategorySubdivisions of countries that are title "District", "Ward", etc.... these are various subdivisions solely with common names (some of which are merely translations of the real local names (e.g. Rayons become "districts" in Wikipedian Azerbaijan, but Raions in Ukraine don't - see Category:Raions of Ukraine - go figure). Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that a foo-named administrative subdivision of one country is anything like that of another, serving the same functions, having the same powers, having similar officers, whether its power derives sui generis or whether its power is devolved by some unitary authority, etc. - purely coincidence of name. Take, e.g., Districts of Israel (1st level), Districts of India (2nd level), Districts of Iran (3rd level), and Districts of South Korea (see Administrative divisions of South Korea, which appear to come in two flavors, one submunicipal). We have categories with first-, second- etc. level subdivisions; these add nothing but coincidence of names. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (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.

Parishes by country

[edit]
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:Civil parishes by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES - nominated above by Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC). Split into this separate discussion by – Fayenatic London 15:44, 2 November 2012 (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:India media stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use the demonym. Dawynn (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2012 (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:People's Republic of China media stubs

[edit]
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:China media stubs. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/November. Consensus is to use the demonym. Dawynn (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is highly misleading, since "Chinese media" is frequently used to mean "ethnic Chinese media" or "Chinese-language media" in many English-speaking areas of the world. "China media stubs" would work much better, without the highly ambiguous nature given to country demonyms that are shared with linguistic and ethnic nomenclature. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Changing the name changes the scope of this category drastically. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one is a little more complicated than other countries due to the conflict over the name China, but I'd still like to point out that demonyms are used to mean nationalities NOT languages throughout wikipedia. Demonym-language is always used when language is meant. There are literally thousands of categories which you could argue are ambiguous because it could be taken to mean language, and yet the consensus is to use demonyms for them.
However, as I understand the latest decisions and article renames, wikipedia now considers 'China' to mean PRC, but 'Chinese' to be a broader term including (among others) ROC? (Anyone who actually managed to follow that mess feel free to confirm or deny). In current stub cats ROC templates and cats all use 'Taiwan' and none of them use the corresponding 'China' or 'Chinese' cats as parents. Is 'Chinese media' not the correct scope to be a parent to 'Chinese films' etc? In which case the film cats should be renamed. --Qetuth (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_2&oldid=1138397116"