< April 8 April 10 >

April 9

Category:115th United States Congress

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:115th United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as (very) premature. The 115th Congress will begin in 2017. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My wording isn't clear. If you win a senatorial election this November, either you will sit in the 115th Congress, or someone will be appointed in your place to sit in the 115th Congress. Someone will sit in the 115th Congress as a result of this year's senatorial election in Ohio, and the same is true of the 32 other senatorial elections this year. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't understand why that makes the category worth keeping. Surely nobody will use it to find the article on the upcoming Ohio election. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the elections thing: if you'd read my comment, you would have seen that I agree that the person elected will potentially not sit there. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to add this category to the winners of this year's senatorial elections until the 115th Congress convenes. However, each election is being held to choose someone to sit in that Congress, so the election articles themselves should go in this category. Moreover, we have no way to be sure that the Olympic Games will be held in 2020, but policy says that it's an acceptable topic. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? As I said above, the election and the elected should be treated differently: it may be that neither Sherrod Brown nor any of his opponents sits in the 115th Congress, but the term of office will be included in the 115th Congress. Either someone on my ballot will sit in that Congress, or that person's inability or unwillingness to sit in that Congress will provoke a vacancy-filling process that's directly and closely related to that Congress. If this were the 116th Congress, the situation would be completely different, as all of the elections to fill the 116th Congress are in the comparatively remote future and thus unsuitable article topics, but the presence of appropriate and relevant articles makes this a valid category. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, as I said above, there are more than thirty articles of that sort that could belong in the category. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nepalese entrepreneurs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Nepalese entrepreneurs to Category:Nepalese businesspeople
Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge All similar categories have been merged and Category:Entrepreneurs is in fact kept as a redirect to Category:Businesspeople. Pichpich (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Health in Southeast Asia

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 - No prejudice against re-creation should consensus of a future RfC agree to create such a categorisation scheme for regional parts of Asia (such as "Southeast Asia"). - jc37 21:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Health in Southeast Asia to Category:Health in Asia
Nominator's rationale: I don't see the value of having a separate sub-regional category for SE Asia, especially if we don't have sub-regional cats for the other parts of Asia, per United_Nations_geoscheme (which would imply the following categories: Central Asia, Eastern Asia, Southern Asia, South-Eastern Asia, Western Asia). --KarlB (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment: When I did some re-classification in this tree recently, I decided to keep the existing 'Central America' and 'Caribbean' cats because often those are considered somewhat separate from North America, and those regional definitions are well supported; but dividing up Asia into several chunks, and then deciding whether we should do the same for Africa/etc, made me think - forget it, lets just delete SE Asia and things will be mostly consistent. I also admit that the easy availability of templates for 'North America', 'Central America', 'Caribbean' etc (and the unavailability of those same templates for 'Western Asia' for example) and the fact that almost all of the countries had a 'Health in Asia' template/set of links at the bottom made me think a single cat for Asia would suffice. I welcome your comments. I'd also ask that you consider whether any of the other country divisions in the UN geoscheme are very well known. I for one could not name all of the countries in Southern Europe per the UN scheme, nor the countries in Western Asia - but Caribbean and Central america are pretty easy to sort. In any case, I wouldn't oppose getting rid of those cats as well, and merging central america and caribbean up to north america for consistency's sake.--KarlB (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shake It Up: Live 2 Dance

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shake It Up: Live 2 Dance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An article for an album is already going to have links to all of its songs that have articles. There is no need to categorize by album title. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Journalists imprisoned for refusing to reveal sources

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: nomination withdrawn (self-close by nominator). The grounds for deletion no longer exist, because the category is now adequately populated. There are no remaining votes to delete, so a self-closure is permissible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Journalists imprisoned for refusing to reveal sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Back in mid-February, I nominated Category:Arrests of journalists for deletion. The discussion was relisted at CfD March 3, and finally closed on 14 March as "No consensus to delete. Consensus to rename to Category:Journalists imprisoned for refusing to reveal sources & purge; revisit if necessary".
It was revisited quite quickly, because most of those in the renamed category had not been arrested for refusing to reveal sources, and Khazar2 (talk · contribs) purged the category. As explained in this thread at WP:CFD/W, the result is that there is only one article in the category, viz. Judith Miller (journalist).
A 1-article category is no use for navigation. Unless someone can demonstrate that this category is capable of meaningful expansion, then it should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Categories are for navigation; if there's only one likely entry, a category is useless. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Archaeological artefacts

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. There's a trend emerging in CFDs that matching the main article name takes precedent over WP:RETAIN. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Archaeological artefacts to Category:Archaeological artifacts
Nominator's rationale: Consistency. I understand that we don't generally change content from US spelling to UK spelling or vice versa. However, the article about this topic is Artifact (archaeology), and Artefact (archaeology) is a redirect to it. There's no good reason to have the article and the category using different spellings, and because categories are supposed to help us use the articles and not vice versa, it's better to rename the category than to rename the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides what I already said, I think the article should stay at its present form instead of the category for two more reasons: (1) Moving an article can be much more disruptive than a category, since we virtually never link to categories in text, while relatively important articles get tons of links, so a lot more people would be surprised by moving the article. (2) We've had an article at this title since 2004, while we've had a category at this title since 2005. WP:RETAIN says that we should go with the usage given in the oldest established usage when we're deciding what dialect of English to use in an article; it doesn't address category/article issues like this discussion does, but the underlying principle I believe is helpful here. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a great deal more humans, dihydrogen monoxide, sunlight, and just about everything else in the Old World, but our relevant language policy views general topics such as this as being neutral in varieties of English. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Can-Am teams

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. This current category name is the product of a speedy renaming, which proceeded on the basis of "bringing a category into line with established naming conventions", even though there were 3 other exceptions. Since there was a full discussion which reached was no consensus on whether to rename those 3 other exceptions, they have been retained. I will therefore treat this discussion as a contested speedy renaming for which consensus was found not at full discussion, and restore the status quo ante bellum by reversing the speedy renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Can-Am teams to Category:Can-Am entrants
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose reversion of recent speedy rename, on the basis that the category contains articles about individuals as well as teams. See also related discussions here and here. DH85868993 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Army Physical Training Corps soldiers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Army Physical Training Corps soldiers to Category:Royal Army Physical Training Corps soldiers
Nominator's rationale: Per the change of title to include the Royal prefix by HM the Queen in 2010 (see Royal Army Physical Training Corps), it seems logical that the category name should be changed to suit this. Acather96 (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nuclear program of the People's Republic of China

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 close - Let's hold off on CfD noms of PRoC/China and RoC/Taiwan until things are sorted out (per the ongoing consensual discussions) and the the dust has settled a bit more. - jc37 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nuclear program of the People's Republic of China to Category:Nuclear program of China
Nominator's rationale: There are four categories of country-specific nuclear programmes (including one on Nazi Germany), and this is the only one that uses the long-form name of the country. There's no reason to have such a long category name when the shortform works just fine. CMD (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC) CMD (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the renaming, so long as "China" is the correct name. I think I put PRC instead of China because of the whole Taiwan issue, but other editors would know better than I which is correct. Publicus 14:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The PRC page was recently moved to China, and the ROC page was (more) recently moved to Taiwan. Categories and article titles are currently being looked at with regards to that. CMD (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was exactly because of the years-long disputes that the distinction wasn't strictly observed. But we can tidy them easily with bots and categoryredirects. Laziness isn't an excuse to leave them messy. Jeffrey (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jeffrey's statement has no basis in anything other than their own viewpoint, and they give no reason for having an unnecessarily long category name. There is differently less importance to sort this than there is to sort out duplicate categories, but I think that it is still worth moving for concision. Categories pile up at the bottom of articles, and the less clutter the better. CMD (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The renaming of the China articles was limited to a specific set of articles rather than being across the board which may be the source of Jeffrey's analysis. I just think we'll need to proceed thoughtfully is elsewhere there is both PRC and ROC content. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ROCs nuclear programme only began after it was restricted to its current territory, and around the time it was kicked out of the UN. I doubt it is ever described as a nuclear programme of China. CMD (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:International buses

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:International buses to Category:Navistar International buses
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Make the fact that these are buses manufactured by a company and not for ones that travel across boarders clearer. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cars of the 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: no consensus. Editors have identified a difficulty in the categorisation of cars by country. It is now not uncommon for a company based in country A to manufacture a model in countries B and C, and sell it countries D to Z. A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request_comment_on_category_renames.2Fcleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cars of the United States to Category:Cars manufactured in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consider this a test nomination following the nomination yesterday about a merge of motor vehicles into this one. If this passes, then additional categories will need to be nominated. Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States is the logical parent category for cars, buses, trucks, boats and whatnot. So the children categories should follow the naming in a logical parent. What exactly is meant by Category:Cars of the United States? Are these government owned cars or official cars or what? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Illegal immigrants to the 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: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

St. Mary's University alumni

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:St. Mary's University, Texas alumni. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More