Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13[edit]

Cycling teams in location[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 based on the modified nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Category:American cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in the United States Category:Cycling teams based in the United States
Category:Australian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Australia Category:Cycling teams based in Australia
Category:Belgian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Belgium Category:Cycling teams based in Belgium
Category:Brazilian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Brazil Category:Cycling teams based in Brazil
Category:British cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in the United Kingdom Category:Cycling teams based in the United Kingdom
Category:Danish cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Denmark Category:Cycling teams based in Denmark
Category:Dutch cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in the Netherlands Category:Cycling teams based in the Netherlands
Category:French cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in France Category:Cycling teams based in France
Category:German cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Germany Category:Cycling teams based in Germany
Category:Iranian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Iran Category:Cycling teams based in Iran
Category:Irish cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Ireland Category:Cycling teams based in Ireland
Category:Italian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Italy Category:Cycling teams based in Italy
Category:Latvian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Latvia Category:Cycling teams based in Latvia
Category:Malaysian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Malaysia Category:Cycling teams based in Malaysia
Category:Norwegian cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Norway Category:Cycling teams based in Norway
Category:Polish cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Poland Category:Cycling teams based in Poland
Category:Portuguese cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Portugal Category:Cycling teams based in Portugal
Category:Spanish cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Spain Category:Cycling teams based in Spain
Category:Swiss cycling teams to Category:Cycling teams in Switzerland Category:Cycling teams based in Switzerland
Nominator's rationale: To bring into line of XX in YY as per WP:NCCAT and following the convention in category hierarchy of Category:Cycle racing in YY. Three renaming debates have taken place about sports teams before in February 2008: baseball, basketball and ice hockey. Not all sports follow this (for example, Category:Rugby union teams and Category:Association football clubs by country); however, cycling teams are eligible to compete pretty much wherever they like, seldom competing in a national league structure, and at the top level the country that a team is based in is pretty irrelevant in sporting terms (for example, Astana (cycling team) have been based in three countries in four seasons) and so the adjective form of the country name is inappropriate. SeveroTC 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Cylcing teams based in France etc. I think there is some (not a lot) relevancy in noting this, and/but can t think of any other way to subdivide Category:Cycling teams. The suggested rename is not a better option as it suggests even more so that the teams listed participate in the countries named. Mayumashu (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was considering bringing this naming style in this nomination and am happy with that if it's preferred. SeveroTC 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updated to reflect suggestion. SeveroTC 20:07, 14 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:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels[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. AFD's may indeed be warranted, but that's outside the jurisdiction of CFD. Courcelles (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels to Category:Fangames
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. I would suspect that many of these are deserving of {{AfD}}s themselves... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 13 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:Poland related unreferenced BLP[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP to Category:Poland related unreferenced BLPs
Nominator's rationale: So that the title is consistent with other BLP categories, which are all plural. Airplaneman ✈ 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Doherty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.28.239 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we don't have any similar categories for other countries; I find it hard to believe that among the 28,222 articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs (updated number:1,096), there's no country with at least as many as Poland (which has 8 articles - current number: 0). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see the value of organizing these by country. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I hope this is a talk page category; if not it should be. The category may have a point in that it may encourage an editor who knows about Poland to provide references. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Shouldn't it be Category:Poland-related unreferenced BLPs? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a creator of the category. I created it well before the other BLP categories (actually with the explicit purpose mentioned by Peterkingiron above) were created and it has since become superfluous. Also re Mishehu's comment - the category went through almost 200 articles but most of them got sourced. Since then another category project ([1]) has been created that deals with newly created BLPs that would normally go in there.radek (talk) 16:52, 22 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:Solar energy standards[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Solar energy standards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Of the three articles in the category, two -- Uniform Mechanical Code and Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code -- make no mention of solar power, leaving us only with one valid entry, Uniform Solar Energy Code. I cannot find anything else in the parent Category:Solar energy to help populate this category at this time. I've taken the liberty of adding to the parent category to this one article; should this CfD be successful no upmerge would be necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Category:Fuel cell standards ?. I think you like the solar topics more than other topics.  ;-) Although there are other reasons, add also Category:Fuel cell standards to the deletion or maintain both. --Nudecline (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Fuel cell standards is reasonably well populated: yours cannot be, at least at this time. Your comment only reinforces my feeling that you are unable to comprehend why your categories are being deleted, one after the other. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of improvement and Shawn's argument seems to me to be correct. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 25 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:Yamaha[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Yamaha to Category:Yamaha Corporation
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the parent article, Yamaha Corporation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 13 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:NTT[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NTT to Category:Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the parent article, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, and to remove ambiguous abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. per convention, abbreviated category page names are spelled out. Mayumashu (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match related article name. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 17 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:Australian football (soccer) players from Melbourne[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:Association football players from Melbourne. — ξxplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian football (soccer) players from Melbourne to Category:Association football (soccer) players from Melbourne
Nominator's rationale: this a subcategory of Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne. The convention is not to include the nationality for categories of people by sub-national place and occupation - eg. Category:Baseball players from California. As for the disambiguate, 'football (soccer)' has been replaced by 'association football' through WP in general, however the term 'soccer' is still commonly used in Australia (if only mostly by those not involved in the sport). Mayumashu (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't really have a strong preference one way or the other about "football (soccer)" and "association football" although I think the argument to keep "football (soccer)" in Australia and nowhere else is fairly flimsy - the sport is now commonly called "football" in Australia. That said, to use "association football (soccer)" is definitely overkill and smacks of the worst sort of compromise between the two uses. "Soccer" is an abbreviation of "association" and it is redundant to use both. It makes the already wordy category name even wordier. Agree with removing the nationality part though and suggest Category:Association football players from Melbourne or Category:Football (soccer) players from Melbourne. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support Category:Association football players from Melbourne as a second choice (to the one I ve nominated). Frankly, I d like to see 'association football' used for all categories relating to all countries across WP. Mayumashu (talk) 14:55, 15 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:Heads of settlement[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Heads of settlement to Category:Positions of subnational authority
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems like an unnecessary layer. These are positions of subnational authority, so they can be categorized as such. (I originally suggested making this "Heads of populated places" to remove "settlements," but this seemed a better course.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 13 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:Club Sportif Orne 1919 Amnéville-les-Thermes players[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Club Sportif Orne 1919 Amnéville-les-Thermes players to Category:CSO Amnéville players
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming the category to match the title of the parent article, CSO Amnéville. BigDom 17:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move in order that category names are consistent with club article names. Eldumpo (talk) 21:12, 14 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:Boroughs of New York City[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 to merge or delete either of these categories. — ξxplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Boroughs of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Boroughs in New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only 5 articles or categories could possibly belong in these categories. They could be served better by a navbox at the bottom of the respective articles. We definitely don't need both of these, and probably neither. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:33, 13 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:Grid parity[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grid parity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: In addition to my CfD of Category:Low cost solar power, I'd like to nominate this parent category of Nopetro's for deletion per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. I believe it's a fine example of Nopetro's habit of misusing categories to point out tangential associations and advance an argument, rather than grouping by defining qualities. Grid parity is described in the main article as "the point at which renewable electricity is equal to or cheaper than grid power." However, this category is mainly populated with solar device manufacturing companies that are not in themselves examples of grid parity. Nor is the Photovoltaics article. Likewise, Solar power in the United States is not an article on grid parity. Take those away and we don't have the makings of a valid category, at least at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Nopetro has not grasped the difference between a category and 'what links here'. Occuli (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mantain Of course one can populate articles with links to other ones (or the massified what links here). But this is not an elegant way to include information about cheap solar electricity (this is the problem, solar electricity is become a serious risk for other dirty electricity and is more and more cheaper).--Nudecline (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (former Nopetro).[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Nudecline (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right now, I'd say "the problem" is your failure to grasp -- or just give a *** -- about how Wikipedia catgeories are supposed to work. Wikipedia does not exist to "include information about cheap solar electricity" -- or promote any cause. We need to follow guidelines and common sense or the encyclopedia just becomes a tangled mess. I've already stated at your latest SPI that I think you need to be blocked from further category creation, due to your persistent misuse of categories over several years. Whether that can happen, I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another junk category. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 21 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:Bogart family[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bogart family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not an actual family as the linked Hemingway is-modern wishful thinking. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – how do we decide whether it is Category:Bogart family, Category:Bacall family or Category:Robards family? And the Hemingway family is a subcat because they were friends?? Occuli (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gratuitous category, any one listed here will also be listed in corresponding articles. Not necessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Friends are not part of family. L. Bacall married twice - to Bogart and then Robards and had a son by the latter who is also a notable actor. Her two husbands were not part of the same family. The links are thus mostly too tenuous to make a good category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 18 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:Lower limb anatomy[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 2#Category:Lower limb anatomy. — ξxplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lower limb anatomy to Category:Lower limb
Nominator's rationale: I want to include some categories like Category:Hosiery that have an obvious connection to legs, but there's no suitable category. I could create another category Category:Lower limb, that would have this present category as a sub-category, but I feel that would be an over-categorisation, and a rename would be better. Fences&Windows 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Category:Upper limb anatomy, as that could then include Category:Armwear. Fences&Windows 15:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anatomy is a tightly defined category and all of its sub-cats should be kept distinct. Clothing for lower limbs is an equally valid category and should be kept separate; and be in a category tree for clothing? (or something). A cross-reference to each would be be ok. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:38, 14 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:Ethnographic objects in the British Museum[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. — ξxplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ethnographic objects in the British Museum to Category:Artefacts from Africa, Oceania and the Americas in the British Museum
Nominator's rationale: British Museum department renamed, this category needs to be renamed to reflect that. See wt:GLAM/BM#Proposed_category. Fæ (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the sub Category:African objects in the British Museum, which will move with the rename, and there are only three articles in the main cat at present, so other subs are hardly needed yet. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The need arises not from the nature of the objects but from the nature of Ethnography, for which the wikipedia page is regrettably poor. Please see the start which has been made at Ethnography at the British Museum. The collecting of objects was a significant element in the development of ethnography, as can be seen from the transfer of objects to Göttingen (Schlözer is not even mentioned in the wikipedia Ethnography entry). His role and the intellectual investigation of the Russian Empire was an important factor in the development of ethnography, something continued when Sergey Oldenburg led the Russian ethnography into the service of the Bolshevik reconstruction of the state. The crux issue is concerned about whether European peoples should be considered the "object" of study for ethnographers. The more recent decision to set aside the name Department of Ethnography for an amalgam of different geographical areas which arguably have little in common except for their marginalisation by European expansionism following the advent of capitalism might indicate that the current way of thinking about these objects - and the consequent taxonomy evinced by the set of categories used - could be liable to change. Perhaps we should keep the category for now, and review in say five years time?Harrypotter (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As as aside, you may wish to experiment with CatScan. Using CatScan to compare the parent categories of British Museum and Ethnography reveals 6 relevant artefacts. Fæ (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now -- It may be useful to recategorise articles by continents, when that has been done, we can reconsider deletion. I suspect there will be more that might go in this cat, but I suspect that the concept is imperialist (or rather colonialist) in the sense that it is about the culture of peoples perceived as "primitive". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a possible solution, though it does mean that relevant artefacts would be listed in both categories. One for the current BM department and one for the old name of the same department. Fæ (talk) 21:12, 18 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:Mitsui Sumitomo[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: upmerge to Category:Mitsui. This is without prejudice to a rename nomination for Category:Mitsui. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mitsui Sumitomo to Category:Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mitsui is a huge company and the insurance company is just one component. I just created a Mitsui category. I would be more in favor of nuking it and putting it all in Mitsui.Americasroof (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to an upmerge. However I do wonder if the category and the article should be at Mitsui Group? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 20 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:Namco Bandai[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Namco Bandai to Category:Namco Bandai Holdings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the lead article, Namco Bandai Holdings. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 13 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:Kawasaki[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. 05:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Kawasaki to Category:Kawasaki Heavy Industries
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article, Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify, if the proposed name is appropriate for (a) all present-day entities using Kawasaki brand (b) the historical zaibatzu founded by Kawasaki Shōzō. I'm not familiar with the corporate history of Kawasaki, but there's the example of Mitsubishi which is now a bunch of independently competing businesses under the same umbrella name. East of Borschov (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category names generally follow the name of the main article which in this case is Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Is there something I missed? If the current name is OK, the proposed name should be also. Mitsubishi is a different case since the article and category already have the same name. On that one you could argue that the name should be Mitsubishi Group, but that is a different issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is, different Mitsubishis are different unrelated companies since the Americans crushed the zaibatsu in '45. The competition between Mitsubishi Electric (MEI) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in home air conditioning markets is a textbook example (I don't recall the authors, but it was indeed a business school case in the early 1990s). They were (then) as related as General Motors and General Electric. East of Borschov (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this says Mitsubishi is not a single company, while Kawasaki seems to be saying everything it can to indicate it is one company. There are bits and pieces that were spun off in past decades, and some were merged back in, so while some former parts of KHI are now separate, the units referenced in the article seem to all actually be part of KHI. --Dbratland (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename given that Kawasaki is a disambiguation page pointing to, among other things, a number of towns in Japan, it would be more appropriate to use the parent company's name for all things related to the Kawasaki Heavy Industries Group. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. It confusing and should be fixed. --Dbratland (talk) 16:05, 13 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:Asian objects at the British Museum[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Asian objects at the British Museum to Category:Asian objects in the British Museum
Nominator's rationale: Consistency; all other department related categories under Category:British Museum use "in the" rather than "at the". Fæ (talk) 06:52, 13 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:Wallenberg Sphere[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:Companies related to the Wallenberg family. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wallenberg Sphere to Category:Wallenberg family Category:Companies related to the Wallenberg family
Nominator's rationale: Merge to the name of the main article. The contents here are business related and includes companies, foundations, banks and hotels. The upmerge would not overload the parent category and would eliminate an oddly named category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 13 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:Low cost solar power[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Low cost solar power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. This category by banned User:Mac (now suspected to be editing as User:Nopetro and User:Nudecline) may be a good example of how what works as an article may not work as a category. The article Low-cost photovoltaic cell begins: "A low-cost photovoltaic cell is a thin-film cell that has a price competitive with traditional (fossil fuels and nuclear power) energy sources. This includes second and third generation photovoltaic cells, that is cheaper than first generation (crystalline silicon cells...)." So in other words, anything other than the most expensive first generation cells can today be deemed "low-cost," if within range of fossil and fission power, and cheaper than the previous 'high-cost solar'. However, current technologies now deemed low-cost may be undercut to the point where they are looked back on as relatively high-cost. I'm doubtful that last year's "low cost" design will remain so, as a defining characteristic. Better to continue categorizing these systems according to objective technological definitions rather than shifting POV perceptions in the markeplace Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-stated nom - Sigh. Another Mac/Nopetro special. I'm tempted to sign a power of attorney to endorse any & all such CFD nominations from Shawn in Montreal. Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as recommended with ca commendation to Shawn for wading through all these. Mangoe (talk) 01:03, 21 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:Companies based in Sweden[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Companies based in Sweden to Category:Companies of Sweden
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to correctly named category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 13 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:Classes of organic compounds[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Classes of organic compounds to Category:Organic compounds
Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant as the classes' subcats were already listed in Category:Organic compounds. Need attention from somebody versed in chemistry. - Skullers (talk) 05:31, 13 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:Supersport motorcycles[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Supersport motorcycles to Category:Sport bikes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category should align with Types of motorcycles and have Sport bike as its main article. Having a category for "motorcycles eligible for Supersport racing" violates WP:BIAS by ignoring that there are many supersport classes around the world: AMA Supersport Championship, British Supersport Championship, Supersport World Championship, the All-Japan Supersport championship, China Superbike Championship's supersport class, and others. Note that Supersport racing not a proper main article but is a disambiguation page because the term means so many different things. Not to mention muddling the distinctions with the several classes of Superbike racing, because "supersport" also happens to be a widely used term for all sport bikes, not just those in the supersport racing classes. It would make sense to have a category for each specific racing class, such as Category:British Supersport Championship motorcycles, but trying to lump them all together is meaningless and confusing.

In contrast, it does make sense to have categories for sport bikes, cruisers, dual-sports, and so on, as described in Types of motorcycles. Dbratland (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename - sport bike is a universally understood term. Supersport is a subjective term and is therefore often misapplied. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:31, 13 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.

Philosophy portals[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. Courcelles (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Logic Portal[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Logic Portal to Category:Logic portal
Nominator's rationale: consistent title format Greg Bard 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Metaphysics Portal[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Metaphysics Portal to Category:Metaphysics portal
Nominator's rationale: consistent title format Greg Bard 02:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ethics Portal[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Ethics Portal to Category:Ethics portal
Nominator's rationale: consistent title format Greg Bard 02:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Epistemology Portal[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Epistemology Portal to Category:Epistemology portal
Nominator's rationale: consistent title format Greg Bard 02:50, 13 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.

Leftover cities, towns and villages[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 (taking into consideration many other discussions that have implemented this change). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Serbia cities, towns and villages by district templates to Category:Populated places in Serbia by district template
Propose renaming Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places listings in Massachusetts by city, town, and village to Category: Lists of National Register of Historic Places listings in Massachusetts by populated place
Propose renaming Category:Lists of cities, towns and villages in Burma to Category: Lists of populated places in Burma
Propose renaming Category:Cities and communities of the Mogollon Rim to Category:Populated places of the Mogollon Rim
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Leftover categories of this type from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 28#Many more settlements.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:42, 13 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:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel to Category:Communal settlements in IsraelCategory:Community settlements in Israel
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is much more like the standard Israeli definition of "settlements".--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:42, 13 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:Settlements of urban type in the Sakha Republic[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: withdrawn, note added.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Settlements of urban type in the Sakha Republic to Category:Urban-type settlements in the Sakha Republic
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match all the other Category:Urban-type settlements in Russia subcategories, a legit use of the term "settlements" despite all the recent changes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category was named this way for a reason. Unlike with most other federal subjects of Russia, Sakha's laws do not mention "urban-type settlements", but rather distinguish "settlements" as inhabited localities of urban type (as opposed to "towns"—a different kind of inhabited localities of urban type, and selos—inhabited localities of rural type). Using just "settlements in the Sakha Republic" as a category name would, however, be ambiguous to the historical aspect (before the 1990s there used to be "settlements" of both rural and urban type in the republic), hence the addition of the "of urban type" clarification.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2010; 13:38 (UTC)
Wacky. Okay, assuming no one with historical knowledge of this disagrees with you, I'll withdraw this in a couple days.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If correct, this needs adding to an exemption list or to be added to the category in some way. Possibly as a page notice so it only appears when you try to edit the category, like when someone would like to nominate it for renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:41, 14 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:FELDA settlements[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FELDA settlements to Category:Federal Land Development Authority settlements
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spelling out the agency name. These seem to be "settlements" in the classical sense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 13 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.

Leftover settlements[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: complex.
Rename the following
The following will be tagged as "no consensus", as objections were made and concerns not addressed. These can be renominated in a subsequent nomination.

— ξxplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Østfold to Category:Populated places in Østfold
Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Palau to Category:Populated places in Palau
Propose renaming Category:Settlements in the Netherlands Antilles to Category:Populated places in the Netherlands Antilles
Propose renaming Category:Settlements of the Moravian Church to Category:Populated places of the Moravian Church withdrawn
Propose renaming Category:Settlements under Transnistrian control to Category:Populated places under Transnistrian control
Propose renaming Category:Anglo-Saxon settlements to Category:Anglo-Saxon populated places
Propose renaming Category:Mercian settlements to Category:Mercian populated places
Propose renaming Category:Syriac settlements to Category:Syriac populated places
Propose renaming Category:Depopulated settlements in the Land of Israel to Category:Former populated places in the Land of Israel Category:Depopulated places in the Land of Israel
Propose renaming Category:Heads of settlement to Category:Heads of populated places withdrawn
Propose renaming Category:Histories of settlements in England to Category:Histories of populated places in England
Propose renaming Category:Histories of settlements in Northern Ireland to Category:Histories of populated places in Northern Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Histories of settlements in Scotland to Category:Histories of populated places in Scotland
Propose renaming Category:Histories of settlements in Wales to Category:Histories of populated places in Wales
Propose renaming Category:Histories of settlements in the United Kingdom to Category:Histories of populated places in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Icelandic settlements on the Ring Road to Category:Populated places on the Ring Road Category:Populated places on Iceland's Route 1
Propose renaming Category:Lakeshore settlements in Chile to Category:Lakeshore populated places in Chile Category:Populated lakeshore places in Chile
Propose renaming Category:Native settlements of ancient Gaul to Category:Native populated places in ancient Gaul
Propose renaming Category:Thurrock settlements on the River Thames to Category:Populated places in Thurrock on the River Thames
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Just some leftovers from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 28#Many more settlements. I certainly don't know everything about these places, so comment if you see something out of whack. I left alone all categories in Russia and Canada, anything with the word "Port" in it, and anything with the modern definition of settlement in the area around Israel. (The Land of Israel category refers to the ancient area, and contains cities, towns, villages, whatever.) The Ring Road includes only places in Iceland, because it's an island.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think that Category:Lakeshore settlements in Chile should become Category:Populated lakeshore places in Chile, similar to the preference for Category:Populated coastal places over Category:Coastal populated places in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. So updated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Anglo-Saxon and Mercian settlement categories should not be deleted, and they should stay as settlements, not populated places. The creation of these categories is an ongoing work under WP:WPASK and is specifically to list settlements that were established during the anglo-saxon period. Redirects on original placenames are added to enable the category to be used to populate a settlement list, and also as placemarks for follow-up stubs on anglo-saxon etymology. Category:Mercian settlements is merely the first sub-category being completed.Metabaronic (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are useful for our purposes for right now, the development of full articles on these settlements is something that will happen in the future, we have several editors very devoted to Mercia, and others who are doing considerable work with Sussex. Sadads (talk) 11:18, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_13&oldid=1078927534"