< November 6 November 8 >

November 7

Category:Katyn Massacre perpetrators

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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Katyn Massacre perpetrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Also the title is inherently POV and there is no evidence that any of the people in this category, save perhaps Stalin and Beria, were "perpetrators" of the massacre. Most of them are political functionaries who appear to have bene added just because they were Soviet politicians around the time this took place. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 00:01, 8 November 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:Major League Baseball pinch hitters

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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is in Category:Major League Baseball players by position. Being a pinch hitter is not really a "position", it's just an occurrence in the game where a batter is inserted to hit in the place of another person. It's definitely not defining, as most non-pitchers have pinch hit at some time in their careers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 7 November 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:Federalists (United States)

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:Federalist Party politicians. There's no disambiguity on this subject on Wikipedia yet. If some comes up later, we can reconsider.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Federalists (United States) to
OPTION 1: Category:Federalist Party politicians
OPTION 2: Category:Federalist Party (United States) politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. My initial intention was to simply propose renaming this to match the standard format for politicians: "POLITICALPARTY politicians". The main article is at Federalist Party and the party category is Category:Federalist Party, so the category for politicians would be Category:Federalist Party politicians. This change was opposed at speedy rename because it was argued that "Federalist Party" is ambiguous (see copy of speedy discussion; as noted there, there have been other parties called the "Federalist Party", but they seem to be quite obscure, and they don't have WP articles). We need to decide whether we want to match the name to the main article or disambiguate to Category:Federalist Party (United States) politicians. Either option is fine with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Federalists (United States) to Category:Federalist Party politicians — C2C Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object insufficiently disambiguous. Suggest Category:Federalist Party (United States) politicians instead. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the other "Federalist Party" I don't know about? The article is at Federalist Party and there is no Federalist Party (disambiguation), so my proposal would be the standard format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Parties that promote the political concept of federalism; and possible variant translations of the parties at Federal Party (disambiguation) (which are all translations of their actual names) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that's very convincing. Two of those listed at Federal Party (disambiguation) use the Spanish name Partido Federal, which clearly translates as Federal Party, not Federalist Party. Federalist Party would be Partido Federalista. They are two different words, in English and Spanish. The other party mentioned, the Sri Lankan one, is a redirect to Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi, which the article says translates into English as "Lanka Tamil State Party"; the article says in English it called itself the Federal Party. Could you provide an example of a specific political party that is reguarly referred to in English sources as the "Federalist Party"? I'm not aware of any. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • A cursory Google Scholar search turns up many parties that are politically federalist (Gscholar ... as well as [1][2] some news reports on "federalist party" (political concept) . 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There was a Federalist Party in the Turkic regions [3][4] and Africa [5] . 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, sounds good—nice research. Judging by the prominence of those parties, I'm not sure that confusion is likely to occur, but since it's theoretically possible I can go along with disambiguation. I'm not sure if it requires a full CFD to depart from the name of the main article; since the category currently disambiguated it's probably fine to just rename speedily to Category:Federalist Party (United States) politicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 5 November 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:Lists of awards by film

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's notes

After perusing the discussion, it seems to me that there is a conflict, in this situation, between two basic category naming guidelines:

  1. A category's name should reflect the naming convention(s) used by related categories, especially the immediate parent category; and
  2. A category's name should reflect the naming convention(s) used by the pages it contains.

The first rule supports keeping the current title, per Category:Lists of awards by award winner and the subcategories for actors, musicians, and television series; the second rule supports renaming to Category:Lists of accolades by film, per List of accolades received by Almost Famous and 31 similarly named lists. The situation is complicated further by the fact that categories such as Category:Lists of awards by television series themselves do not follow the second rule (its members all use "awards and nominations").

On the whole, however, the consensus—of this discussion and the two requested move discussions at Talk:List of accolades received by Almost Famous—seems to support moving away from "awards" and "awards and {accolades/nominations}", at least for films. Additional discussion, and perhaps an RfC, at a centralized location probably would be useful in order to decide how to name these types of lists (and the categories that contain them) in general.

-- Black Falcon (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of awards by film to Category:Lists of accolades by film
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from speedy section. This same change was proposed in April 2010 (by me) but there was no consensus for it. I still think that on balance it's a good idea to make the change, though I'm not super enthusiastic for it. I opposed this change being made speedily, but ultimately I think I mildly support the change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy proposal and discussion
  • An "accolade" can be neither an award nor an nomination for an award. For instance, being added to some publication's "recommended viewing" list; getting 5 stars from a movie reviewer; or getting two thumbs up from Ebert and his partner. Are these "awards"? Kind of, but not really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual lists appear to include only awards and nominations, eg academy and guild awards, rather than ratings fom reviewers etc. Cjc13 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NBR top ten list seems to be more like an "accolade" in this respect. However, it could probably be called an "award" since they give specific awards and include the top ten list in their list of "awards". I'm still not convinced that "awards and nominations" is somehow better than "accolades", though. It seems like we should use whatever the articles use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NBR website uses the term "awards", including the top ten list.[6] "Awards and nominations" is the more common and precise term than "accolades" in regard to films. "Accolades" seems too vague and could lead to trivial comments about the films being included in the articles. Cjc13 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 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, Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recognition from film critics' circles are usually in the form of nominations or awards. Presence on lists of critically acclaimed films is usually by nomination. Thus both types seem to be covered by awards and nominations. Cjc13 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I asked above—if it is thought "awards and nominations" is better than "accolades" then shouldn't editors get the article names changed first, then? What's the rationale for doing this back-to-front and changing the category name first? Don't category names usually follow the naming pattern of articles, especially when all the articles use a consistent name format? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that "nominations" is intended to be used equivocally? Either to mean that it was nominated for an award but not winning it, and to mean that it was nominated to be on a list of best films, minus any award terminology? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These lists of best films could be considered nominations as they are compiled based on opinions rather than fact. The lists in the category seem to have been created primarily, and in many cases exclusively, to cover awards and award nominations. Few if any seem to include best film lists, apart from major annual lists from critics' societies which could be considered as awards. Cjc13 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 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:Riding masters

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:Dressage trainers, which seems to be the least objectionable option (of the ones proposed, that is). The issue of subjectivity hinges, I think, on whether the term "master" is being used subjectively to suggest importance or the phrase "dressage master" is a more-or-less accepted/recognized (by reliable sources) classification. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Riding masters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:A category for Equestrian masters who had great influence, good or bad, on modern riding. - I've no experience of the category system, but this seems a highly subjective subcategory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytona2 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 7 November 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:Turkmenistan articles

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 both. — ξxplicit 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Turkmenistan articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Uzbekistan articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These categories and their subcategories don't contain any articles, except one user page and some bot-generated pages that don't contain any useful information, and so I think all those categories should be deleted. Svick (talk) 14:08, 7 November 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:People from Newark, Nottinghamshire

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. — ξxplicit 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Newark, Nottinghamshire to Category:People from Newark-on-Trent
Nominator's rationale: To match head article Newark-on-Trent. If there is consensus for this renaming, I suggest re-creating the present title as a ((category redirect)). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 7 November 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:John Davidson (poet)

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) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:John Davidson (poet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, small category unlikely to grow. — ξxplicit 07:16, 7 November 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:Buildings and structues in Liège (city)

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: Has already been speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G6. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings and structues in Liège (city) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are many possible misspellings of categories, but this one now comes up on automated searches/dropdowns before any of the legitimate spellings. Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 7 November 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:Massacres commited by the United Kingdom

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 delete as creator request; as discussed, anyone can nominate Category:Massacres committed by countries and its subcategories, but they probably should be considered together as a group. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Massacres commited by the United Kingdom to Category:Massacres committed by the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Just a case of misspelling :). My apologies.--Darius (talk) 05:03, 7 November 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:Motown songwriters and producers

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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Motown songwriters and producers to Category:Motown artists (where applicable), Category:American songwriters (or an appropriate subcategory) and Category:Record producers (or an appropriate subcategory).
Nominator's rationale: As far as I'm aware, we don't categorize songwriters or producers by record label, especially not mushed together into one category like this. From reviewing the contents of the category, I'd also say this is misleading, as many of these individuals simply contributed a written song or record production for Motown, some extensively, but aren't necessarily signed to the record label. — ξxplicit 02:17, 7 November 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.

Branches of Buddhism

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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vajrayana Buddhism to Category:Vajrayana
Propose renaming Category:Mahayana Buddhism to Category:Mahayana
Propose renaming Category:Theravada Buddhism to Category:Theravada
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. There are no other "Theravadas", "Mahayanas", or "Vajrayanas" so this can only refer to Buddhism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 7 November 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