< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

Category:2000s american children's animated films

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:2000s American animated films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2000s american children's animated films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Supercategory is sufficient. Goustien (talk) 17:08, 6 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:History of Sahara

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) 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:History of Sahara to Category:History of the Sahara
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Always known in English with the definite article (for example, in the name of the related category Category:Flora of the Sahara). Grutness...wha? 07:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I see the logic. Not quite sure I approve, but it does keep things consistent, so I have struck my oppose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 11 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:Men by occupation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep all for now. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Men by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Male actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Male comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Male film directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Male dancers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There's a reason Category:Women by occupation exists, and it's not because women have historically had open access to all those occupations. I see no reason for the parallel category to exist: it will be full of non-notable intersections and of an unmanageable size. I am also nominating some of its subcategories. (Category:Male dancers isn't an obnoxious category in the same way, but it's redundant to Category:Danseurs, which seems to be the accepted one; I'm neglecting Category:Sportsmen at the moment because that has its own set of subcats and we can deal with this first.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any real people in Category:Housewives, except one person in the subcategory Category:Housewives who committed suicide. Like some of the categories above, there are probably more articles on Wikipedia that belong in the category, but it doesn't appear to be a widely used categorization scheme. However, these exceptions don't mean that the general scheme of Category:Women by occupation is flawed, in the same way that the completely valid Category:Male pageant winners doesn't validate Category:Men by occupation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that the categories aren't used; what's in them is random and not representative of the actual class on Wikipedia. I'm just not sure it's policy to have that category...? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: per the long-standing guidance at WP:CATGRS, at WP:Cat gender, a female category does not have to be balanced by a male one, and vice-versa. Both should be assessed on their individual merits, which is what this group nomination fails to do. It lumps together male film directors (which looks to me like a hard-to-justify category) with male actors (which has some prima facie merit, because as you point out men cannot usually play female parts). If the nominator is serious about deleting these categories, they should be nominated separately to allow an individual discussion on each of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 8 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.

Animal breeds originating in COUNTRY

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. And I also do not think that this will have any influence on edit wars as Montanabw suggested. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copy of nominations from WP:CFDS
Nominator's rationale: rename all. These were nominated at the speedy section but were opposed. My rationale is to standardize the way subcategories in Category:Animal breeds by country of origin are presented. "Animal breeds originating in COUNTRY" seems to be the standard of the parent categories, with modern borders being used to define the country. This format is already in place for the subcategories of Category:Dog breeds, and this nomination was made to standardize the chicken, pig, and horse breeds subcategories. I see no reason that the parent categories should be in one format and the subcategories be in a different one. That's why the speedy criterion C2C exists, which these were nominated under. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically. Status quo OK with me. If people want consistency though, then I like my way better. (smile) Montanabw(talk) 03:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renaming all actually is more work that renaming the ONLY category (dog breeds) that currently uses this format. I really think this is overkill. At least PLEASE don't say "originating in" Or else volunteer to help me out the next time the Slovenia versus Austria edit war starts at the Lipizzan article. Montanabw(talk) 18:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the pigs category is not the only one. The parent categories for animals all use it, and in my opinion it is superior. It's not a question of how much work it is, since a bot performs the renaming. I don't really see a consensus for the FOOian animals version anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I said, Dogs, not pigs. And I think dogs IS the only one...name the rest if I'm wrong. Frankly I think the "animal breeds by country of origin" thing is also a problem. But the two of us can just argue "my version is better" all day long. I suggest we close with NO CONSENSUS and let sleeping dogs lie. Montanabw(talk) 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, I meant dogs. 5:2 (so far) is a fairly good consensus in favour of consistency, IMO. If this is closed as "no consensus", I'll be opening another nomination to standardise these, so nothing's going to "lie" for long. I'd sooner have it relisted than closed as NC, though.
"And I think dogs IS the only one...name the rest if I'm wrong." The rest are the 83 subcategories in Category:Animal breeds by country of origin. And Category:Cattle breeds originating in India. Add those to the dog breed ones and we're looking at about a 3:1 ratio in favour of the format I'm proposing. The 83 animal breed ones are parent categories, which is why these qualified for speedy renaming in the first place, which you have seen fit to extend here. What you don't seem to want to concede is that we need some form of consistency. This is a first step in that direction. If the change was made, it would then be open to you to propose that the tree change it's default naming scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 26 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:Kotzebue Sound Watershed

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) 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kotzebue Sound Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gulf of Alaska Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gulf of Venezuela Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not notable. Google gives all of 12 hits, most from Wikipedia for Kotzebue Sound Watershed. I suspect that this is one of those USGS code names. Gulf of Alaska Watershed has all of 8 hits, again Wikipedia is a good number of those, but it does get some other hits. Gulf of Venezuela Watershed had 5 hits with all from Wikipedia or shadows. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 6 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:Olympic competitors from Oregon

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Olympic competitors from Oregon to Category:Sportspeople from Oregon
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These athletes did not represent Oregon in the Olympics, but the United States, an independent nation, thus making it a trivial intersection.TM 00:26, 6 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:Redirects to documentation

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:Redirects to talk pages. If the template is deleted, this can be deleted too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects to documentation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no need to track redirects from the talk pages of template doc subpages to template talk pages. Also, they're not redirects to documentation. Bsherr (talk) 00:13, 6 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:Irish chat shows

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Irish chat shows to Category:Irish talk shows
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent and sibling cat.s. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 6 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:History of Ireland 1801-1922

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 and redirect. However, no explanation was given for why an additional year was added to the category name. If this is incorrect, then it can be immediately renamed to "1922" version.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:History of Ireland 1801-1922 to Category:History of Ireland 1801–1923
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:04, 6 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.
More