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. Courcelles 05:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is empty and could simply have been db-c1 tag. Davshul (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As long as the cat wasn't cleared out in anticipation of this nomination, I would agree. I'm open to later discussions of migrations though because I think the distinction between diaspora and expatriate cats is muddy, e.g. Category:Equatoguinean expatriates. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one category, either Category:African diasporas or Category:African diaspora. But if the former then Category:Asian diasporas and Category:European diasporas should be renamed to “diaspora” also, ie to Category:Asian diaspora & Category:European diaspora (there is no category for North America, South America or Oceanian diasporas). Perhaps though as each continent category for diaspora is for a number of countries then the plural “diasporas” should be used for all continents, so retain only Category:African diasporas? PS: The article African diaspora does deal only with Sub-Saharan Africa, although the section on Italy notes that only a minority of people of African descent in Italy relate to Sub-Saharan Africa (and presumably the same applies to France, with many there from ex-North African colonies). Hugo999 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Category:African diasporas per nom Diaspora is used as a singular word in most all WP categories. No particular reason to make it plural. Hmains (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2011 (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.
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. Courcelles 05:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUpmerge This appears to have something to do with the coloring of the map at right, but since I can find no explanation for that I question the meaningfulness of this category. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Slavic countries. I can see no justification for this separately category (Also, I note that there are no corresponding East Slavic countries and South Slavic countries categories.) However, it should be upmerged into the parent category. Davshul (talk) 16:47, 25 December 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Match title of parent article Union College and make it easier for an editor to match the category to the parent. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Rename article back to Union College (New York), and use "Union college" as a dabpage. The NY college may be the oldest and thus have a claim to primacy, but the dabpage lists six Union Colleges. The proposed target is dangerous, because it will attract entries from other colleges. For that reason, while the article on Birmingham, England is at "Birmingham", its categories are at Birmingham, England, so that it does not attract articles on Birmingham, AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli and Peterkingiron, and rename the head article to restore the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 25 December 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.
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. Courcelles 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The discussion to rename Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico pointed out that these are in fact drainage basins and not structural basins. So they should be merged into one unambiguously named category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Drainage basin is the full name for this type of basin. Hmains (talk) 23:54, 31 December 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.
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. This pair of nominations is over one empty category and a category with one member. With no strong consensus to keep, this can also be deleted under OC small. If anyone can find more articles to populate a better defined category in this area, they can do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded and redundant category. Azar66 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query – why is it unneeded and to what is it redundant? The nom needs to give a better rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and "nations in" then Rename to Category:Tribes of Poland or Category:Ancient tribes of Poland, matching article Tribes of Poland and populate usinng that article. However, one of the tribes appears to be in Dacia (i.e. Roumania) not Poland. We also need a category for nations that preceding the present Poland, including Greater and Lesser Poland, Silesia, and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw; may be this already exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Tribes of Poland" can only describe the tribes of West Slavs that lived from around the mid-7th century to the creation of first Polish state by the Piast dynasty in the territories that became Polish.
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.
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. This pair of nominations is over one empty category and a category with one member. With no strong consensus to keep, this can also be deleted under OC small. If anyone can find more articles to populate a better defined category in this area, they can do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded and redundant category. Azar66 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query – why is it unneeded and to what is it redundant? The nom needs to give a better rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See nomination: "Category:Historical nations of Poland" -- Azar66 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If retained merge it and next item above. See that discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 24 December 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:41, 31 December 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.
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:As the category is currently empty, there is nothing to listify. Therefore, it is a delete.. Courcelles 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of cities. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Venues by event, where it states that "there is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there". These are already mentioned in the article text and in table form at America's Cup. It's certainly not defining for places like Auckland, San Diego, and Valencia, Spain. Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per nominator and SmokeyJoe. The presence of a one-off sporting event is indeed non-defining for the cities in this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a defining characteristic of the cities and other places where the races were held. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. I think the categories listed by Choster should go the same way - worth a nomination? TheGrappler (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the category creator here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the category creator and confess to not thinking this through! I fully support a Listify approach which will enable America's Cup venue specifics such as courses etc to be properly described. The main article should be focussed on the challenges, results and changes to the cup format I would prefer a separate article America's Cup host cities and venues rather than List of America's Cup host cities and venues but I will fully support the majority decision on this. Boatman (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to comment. To be honest I think people were just suggesting the article name starts "List of" because we were talking about a very basic listification. Once some more content gets fleshed out, that's a rubbish title (I think "list of" is worth avoiding unless necessary for clarification) so I think you should feel free to go ahead at America's Cup host cities and venues. TheGrappler (talk) 19:08, 31 December 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:Ukrainian soccer clubs outside of Ukraine[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Association football" is the common general term used on EN Wikipedia. Darwinek (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The common term is "soccer". While it is appropriate that soccer redirects to the formal title, making this change throughout the project reduces accessibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where I come from, 'outside' is an alternative to 'outside of'. How is a team in Toronto part of 'Football in Ukraine'? Occuli (talk) 01:19, 24 December 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.
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. Courcelles 05:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't think redirect is needed. TheGrappler (talk) 22:58, 23 December 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the other cities have been just ruins for over 2000 years. There is no need for a seperate cat between the island and the city on it. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough other potential meanings that it would seem to me to be foolish to make this a "primary meaning"-type category when the article hasn't taken that approach. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles on the island and the main city. The category can and should cover the lot. If you set up an island category you might want a city one in addition. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The central problem is that there is bound to be confusion with Naxos (Sicily) or Naxos (Crete). If the city Naxos (city) is on the island, doesn't an island category encompass articles about the city that is on the island? That's how other island categories seem to be set up. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No there absolutely isn't! The Sicilian one was abandoned for a better site in 358 BC, and hasn't even left any proper ruins, and it is unclear is the Cretan one ever actually existed. Both are as obscure as can be, whereas the island is a major tourist destination. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm too insignificant to avoid a finding of "absolutely" no chance of confusion, but I'm a reasonably well-read person, and I had heard of the Sicilian one in my line of work but was unaware of the island of the same name (except in the mythic sense), so I at least have anecdotal evidence that it's possible. (Admittedly, I have little interest in reading about or visiting Aegean islands and would not choose to pursue material about that topic.) In any case, that seems to be a debate more suitable to fixing the name of the article, not the category.
But with categories, don't we tend to default to disambiguation if there is a possible problem, especially if the category name is different from and more ambiguous than the article name, which this one is? These questions aren't being addressed directly. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The category name should match the article name, with an extra disambiguator if necessary. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per Occuli; the category name should match the article name, with an extra disambiguator if necessary. AFAICS, if there is a primary usage for "Naxos" there is a case to be made for Naxos Records, but for now the situation is that there is no primary usage. If anyone disagrees with that, please start with a WP:RM request. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Forum The disagreement here is with the article name. Whatever the article name ends up being, the cat name should follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that example desirable that one distinguishes between Alabama (among others) while the other doesn't? Honest question. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of lengthy discussions is that it is desirable, because ambiguity raises difft issues in difft namespaces. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can this possibly be the wrong forum? As nominator, I have zero issues with the name of the article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:02, 29 December 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Reason: there are 48 US states with a Native Tribes category, 47 are “in” and only South Carolina is “of”; see Category:Native American tribes by stateHugo999 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Pointless inconsistency. TheGrappler (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename nominator's analysis of current names is correct. No obvious reason for this inconsistency to remain Hmains (talk) 18:18, 25 December 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.
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.
Rename Either option is fine but I think the original options in the nom are clearer. The problem with "Ian Proctor dinghies" is that it doesn't make it clear whether Ian Proctor is a designer, a style named after a designer, the person/company who physically made the dinghies... lets keep it nice and clear. TheGrappler (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Proctor designed other types of boat in addition to dinghies - hence the word dinghy should not appear in the cat name. The two categories should be Category:Boats designed by Ian Proctor and Category:Boats designed by Jack Holt. This format can also be used for all other designers of dinghy/keelboat/yacht/catamaran/trimaran etc etc. Boatman (talk) 09:28, 30 December 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.
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 as nominated. Courcelles 05:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The name of this category is not quite right; it is a little bit nonsensical, or at least somewhat redundant. Earlier this year there was discussion of the problematic nature of this category name in a discussion that resulted in the renaming of Category:Sailboat names to Category:Individual sailing vessels. This category was never followed up on, but I suggest that it should be renamed in a similar fashion, since what it contains are articles about individual yachts as opposed to classes of yachts and the other things in Category:Yachts. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to better reflect the actual purpose of the category, which is articles on yachts rather than on their names. Also, the current name wouldn't work for multiple yachts of the same name, such as the series of twenty-something craft named Yeoman by their owner Owen Aisher. His son(?) David has continued the tradition, and is now up to Yeoman XXXII. We do not yet appear to have any articles of any of those 32 craft, but given the number of prizes they have collected I think it's very likely that at least a few of the 32 would pass WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename What BrownHairedGirl said. TheGrappler (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment How is the content of this category supposed to differ from the category Category:Yachts? Looking around various categories in the boat/ship tree, it seems that most just have a plural name of the boat/ship in which the individual vessels are included. Category:Individual sailing vessels may be the exception, not the rule. Of course, Category:Yachts would need additional subcats such as Category:Types of yachts to rid itself directly of articles other than those of individual yachts. Alternatively, the entire boat and ship category branches need to be re-examined and a single pattern established and created for all of them regarding individual boats/ships. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think there is a difference, meaning that this could just as well be merged to Category:Yachts, or if it is kept, many of the articles in Category:Yachts still need to be moved to this category. I'm not really convinced it's necessary, but as long as it exists, I thought the name should at least be fixed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Category: Yachts as this is the standard way to handle named vessels Hmains (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename, but don't merge to Yachts. The topic is broad enough to support both an overall descriptive category, and a "... by name" category. Any mis-categorization is an issue for the articles, not a reason to delete the category.
It's also against policy to depopulate categories whilst they're still under discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (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 that have entered administration[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. Courcelles 05:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the headnote restricts this category to the United Kingdom so the name should follow. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom, but re-create present form as a parent. This should not be a category of defunct company, as the purpose of adminstration is to save the business, not close it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is necessary currently, since we don't currently categorize corporations from any other jurisdiction that have entered into administration. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:14, 30 December 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unneeded eponymous category. No subcategories for songs or albums; apparently there are not even other articles to include—a template has been created but it is Hundred Percent redlinked. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protest at the nom's gross misrepresentation of the template - it contains an endangered bluelink to this category. Otto's argument about Hundred Percent Free being a navigational hub rendering all else redundant is valid in this case as no navigation is possible. ('What links here' reveals Category:Hundred Percent Free songs - the template has missed a trick, indeed Fifty Percent of the tricks.) Yes, delete. Occuli (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I'm not sure how I missed that songs category. That empty songs category. ... I've added it to this nomination since it's empty and I can't find anything to go in it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was, briefly, a song until it was deleted (deservedly IMO). Occuli (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and per Occuli. Two categories for one article and a useless template? Pointless. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Delete this is not about 100% free (libre or gratis) material. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both If noteworthy articles are created to populate them, they can be recreated. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:32, 26 December 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.
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 מישהוOd Mishehu 08:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I suggest renaming to match Change (band). Change is ambiguous and there are a number of albums and songs called "Change" that could result in confusion relating this category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, of course. Thank you. But don't call me Shirley. I prefer "Claire". Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:47, 24 December 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.
