< December 8 December 10 >

December 9

Category:Billing authorities in England

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. Significantly, the nomination basis is largely voided by the use of the term in legislation, although I do note the minimal use of the term in related articles. I would say this no consensus is without prejudice to a later re-nomination given the change of circumstances. -Splash - tk 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Billing authorities in England to article Billing authorities in England
Nominator's rationale: This category has a preamble which explains the term "Billing authority", but there is no article on the topic, and thus nowhere for there to be a source to verify it. It's not an immediately familiar term. It looks as if all unitary authority councils are Billing authorities, ditto all London Borough Councils, all metropolitan boroughs, all two-tier non-metropolitan districts, so the category need not be assigned to members of those categories. Generally needs some attention. PamD 23:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to suggest that it appears that almost all the members of this category could be categorised by putting their category (eg Metropolitan Boroughs) as a subcategory of "Billing Authorities in England", rather than labelling each individual authority. PamD 23:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an "essential category"; IMO the only way a category would be essential is if deleting it would mean that there is an article for which there are no valid categories. Whether or not a council is a billing authority may be important to the council, but my sampling shows that few (if any) of the articles in this category refer to this characteristic in the lead and few (if any) use the word "billing" in the article so, in terms of Wikipedia:categorization, this does not appear to be an important characteristic to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is a good point and the articles in question should refer to that function. I've updated Torbay Council to reflect that and will update the others. MRSC (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more useful to have:
  1. an article on the lines of Local education authority, explaining what a Billing authority is, with a list of all Billing authorities (which could possibly be shortened by including things like "All London Boroughs" with link to a list of them). Similarly for Levying and Precepting authorities and any other functions which might appear as subcategories within Category:Local authorities of England by function.
  2. a short section on "roles" or "functions" or some such title, in each Local Authority's article, which states whether it is a Billing Authority, Education Authority, Precepting Authority etc or not, and gives information as to which authority/ies up or down the scale have that role if this one does not. Much more informative than just adding a category. (Looking at Torbay Council: yes, that sort of thing. I wonder if it could even be done by a template, perhaps, if there's a templates geek happy to get involved?) PamD 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point (1) more realistically would all form part of a Local government finance in England article that doesn't yet exist. The precepting authorities have a relationship to billing authorities that would be better explained together in one place.
Point (2) should definitely happen for each local authority article along the lines of Torbay Council.
Neither are reasons to not have the categories. MRSC (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2013 (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:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago

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 all, without prejudice to re-creation if and when the relevant template(s) are changed to bring them into use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Days 21 through 28 on the AfC pending submissions by age are not being populated into Template:AFC submission/pending (which in turn get's it's logic from Template:AfC age category). Therefore I propose that this category (along with more that I will enumarete) be deleted as not in use. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Nominating:
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/27 days ago
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/26 days ago
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/25 days ago
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/24 days ago
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/23 days ago
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/22 days ago
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/21 days ago
for the exact same rationalle. Hasteur (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are occasional moves to change the way the dating categories work for AFC-pending-submissions. With the backlog as long as it is now, I'd like to see the templates changed so Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 weeks ago becomes unused and 21-27 become used again and any time there are more than a few dozen items over 4 weeks old, and that categories for 28-34 days old be created and Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago become unused any time there are more than a few dozen items over 5 weeks old. When the backlog falls, then make the 28-34 and 21-27-day-old categories become unused and use the 3- and 4- week old categories instead. Since this "dynamic switching around" is not likely to happen unless someone wants to write a bot to rewrite the scripts, and since we chronically have large numbers of items over 28 days old, I am strongly in favor of changing the template to re-enable the 21-27 day categories and disable 3-week categories, and mildly in favor of creating 29-34 day categories and changing the template to use it instead of the 4-week category. However, I agree that if no changes are made to the scripts, then having these extra "day" categories lying around is pretty pointless. They can always be re-created if needed later. If the categories are deleted they should be deleted "without prejudice for re-creation if and when they will actually be used." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that if the underlying by age template gets adjusted so that the categories are being populated there is no prejudice in having them appropriately be re-created. I don't think that expanding the categorization from 4 weeks to 29/30/31 days is appropriate, because at that point, they're just old and need to all be dealt with. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (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:Kerrville New Folk Competition finalists

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OC#AWARD. These people's articles should be (and those I've checked are) in a category such as Category:American folk musicians. Many of the articles in the category don't mention the competition (some examples) (so it can't be a WP:DEFINING characteristic) and those that do it's often in a list of awards. For info: There are lists at Kerrville Folk Festival. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Many of the better written articles in the category in fact DO mention the award as part of the artist's early career. (3) Although many similar competitions exist at other festivals today, none have the long history and unique cultural niche that this one does. Many of the most notable winners have returned in later years to serve as judges of the event. Finally, if you do delete this, I hope an effort is made to keep the data. A list would be fine, but currently I don't know of a thorough list that is easily accessible on the internet. There is, however, this source: -MrFizyx (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2013 (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:Flavour N'abania

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - just contains the eponymous article. DexDor (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2013 (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.

Democracy movements

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is misleading to suggest, as these titles do, that any country experiences a single, cohesive movement toward democracy, or to think of democracy as a clearly defined "final level". Nearly all countries have seen multiple democracy movements, sometimes separated by years or decades (e.g., South Korea's April Revolution of 1960 and June Democracy Movement of 1987) and usually involving multiple parties with varying methods and goals. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2013 (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:List of upcoming Pakistani 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: close: already being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 8. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:List of upcoming Pakistani films to Category:Upcoming Pakistani films
Nominator's rationale: Current name is too lengthy. UBS 01:46, 9 December 2013 (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