March 30
Category:Def American Recordings albums
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Def American Recordings is the former name of the record label American Recordings. A new (set of) categories is not needed every time organization's merely change names (mergers are more complex), and the contents of this category belong in the category that carries the label's current name. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2014 (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:World War II British vehicles
- 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: Renamed DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Both the parent category and the sub-category use "United Kingdom" etc rather than "British" etc (as does the category for the US). For info: A recent CFD resulted in a similar rename of a WWI category. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (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:Renault vehicles
- 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 for all three of these discussions. It appears to me that it would be desirable to have a split to cars/automobiles, but that would lead to a good deal of work and needs a clearer consensus before starting. Maybe a WP:RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles would be a good place to take this next. – Fayenatic London 11:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Split. See Volvo and BMW below. It seems that CFD is not needed so this will be the last one. Did not notice before I added the CFS on the category :-) MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest using Category:Renault cars or Category:Renault passenger vehicles as 'automobile' is primarily US usage and not ideal for a world encyclopaedia. Ephebi (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "automobile" is used by the Automobile Association, one of the oldest of its kind, which is British. "automobile" is also quite frequently used in Canada, so not just USA. And "automobile" has the advantage of also being French, and Renault is a French company. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:BMW vehicles[edit]
- Nominator's rationale: Split. A vehicle can be more than a car. There can als be motorcycles. So "BMW vehicles" should be the top category for "BMW motorcycles" and "BMW automobiles".. MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The present category structure incorrectly puts BMW vehicles (including motorcycles) under an Automobiles category. You don't need a CFD discussion to create Category:BMW automobiles and correct the structure. DexDor (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'm not a car expert. I'm just trying to fix interwiki conflicts :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest using Category:BMW cars or Category:BMW passenger vehicles as automobile is primarily US usage and not idealfor a world encyclopaedia. Ephebi (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no Category:Cars by brand or any similar tree; creating one would be a huge project. Below the Category:Vehicles by brand there is only subcategorization for motorcycles, aircraft, trucks, agricultural and military vehicles, and so on which are not passenger vehicles, and we already have Category:BMW motorcycles alongside Category:Honda motorcycles and so on. The general problem of these categories being improperly parented by Cars of categories (problematic not only because vehicles is not a subset of cars, but because the nationality of the headquarters of the manufacturer is debatable for determining the nationality of a car) is widespread and someting of a red herring here.66.16.149.60 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no reason for this split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Volvo vehicles[edit]
- Nominator's rationale: Split. A vehicle can be more than a car. There can als be buses and trucks. So "Volvo vehicles" should be the top category for "Volvo Buses", "Volvo Trucks" and "Volvo automobiles". MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (per above). DexDor (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]- Either: (1) Rename this category to Category:Volvo automobiles (AFAICS the contents of this category are all about automobiles - trucks are in a separate category), then create a new Category:Volvo vehicles to be the parent cat or (2) create Category:Volvo automobiles and manually move pages down into it. DexDor (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest using Category:Volvo cars or Category:Volvo passenger vehicles as automobile is primarily US usage and not idealfor a world encyclopaedia. Ephebi (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2014 (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 claiming to have psychokinetic abilities
- 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) 00:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities to Category:Psychokineticists
- Nominator's rationale: None of the other paranormal cats have this modifier - the proposed name isn't common but does show up in scifi lit as well as one honest to goodness book I could find (do google book search to find sorry on mobile). Rename in line with other cats like Category:Psychics and Category:Telepaths Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nominator. This category was merely created per a previous Categories for Renaming vote while I was one of the Category Admin's. Have no preference or quarrel with it's removal or renaming, therefore I defer to the consensus or the nominator's suggestion. «»Who?¿? 22:10, 30 March 2014 (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:Former officers of the University Philosophical Society
- 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) 00:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Former officers of the University Philosophical Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining, and (in some cases at least) uncited anyway. Where cited and noteworthy, listify in the main article University Philosophical Society. If it was confined to Presidents, that might be worth keeping alongside some other sub-cats in Category:Presidents of organizations, but this is too vague. If not deleted, should be renamed as Category:Officers of the University Philosophical Society, as Category:Office-holders generally does not distinguish current and former office-holders. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – In almost every case, this characteristic will not be defining for someone who passes the notability threshold. In other words, people do not become notable by virtue of being officers of the Phil; instead, people who were officers of the Phil sometimes went on to do other things that made them notable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not defining to enough of these people to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Being an office holder in a student society will rarely be defining. If kept, rename to include "Trinity College Dublin". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2014 (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:Ex-Presidents of India
- 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 merge WP:G7 (see my talk page). – Fayenatic London 20:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This was newly split by an inexperienced editor. We do not split current and former office-holders within the many sub-cats of Category:Office-holders. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Oculi (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2014 (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:George Temple Poole buildings
- 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Replaced by the hyphenated Category:George Temple-Poole buildings, which matches the article George Temple-Poole Mitch Ames (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support For future reference, this could have been handled more simply at WP:SPEEDY, because of the typo, its difference from the main article (if any) and because it's now empty. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2014 (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:Cultural heritage of Indonesia
- 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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessary layer between Category:Cultural Properties of Indonesia and its parents Category:Indonesian culture and Category:Cultural heritage by country. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a possibility for expansion? In other words, does Indonesia have cultural heritage not formally recognized as "cultural properties and, just as importantly, can we categorize them objectively? -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean like Category:Heritage registers in the Philippines, which has National Cultural Treasures as well as Cultural Properties? I don't think so. Cultural properties of Indonesia states that this title is used in Indonesia for both moveable & immovable, both natural and man-made. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts were more along the lines of Category:Cultural heritage of India, which contains subcategories for archaeological sites, World Heritage Sites, dance and music genres, and art styles, or Category:Cultural heritage of Norway, which contains Category:Churches in Norway. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, there is a category for World Heritage Sites in Indonesia. I have now put it into this one, and withdraw the nomination. – Fayenatic London 19:37, 1 April 2014 (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:Kronos-Saturn
- 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 for now; if a user wants to propose splitting the new category, feel free to do so in a new nomination. Given that the article is at Cronus, there's not really a good reason to have the category use the "Kronos" spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Kronos-Saturn to Category:Cronus-Saturn
- Nominator's rationale: The article is at Cronus; not keen on the format but can't think of anything better. Tim! (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, or split, to Category:Cronus or Category:Saturn (mythology). This category contains a mix of articles related to the Greek god Cronus, the Roman god Saturn, and the planet Saturn in mythology. The combined name makes me think of some type of mythological or comic-book amalgamation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- If anything it is the article that should be renamed. The lead says "Cronus or Kronos". This is about a Greek God, whose name begins with a K - kappa. It is a question of whether that letter is transliterated as C or K. Cronus is a latinisation of the name, with the Latin male ending -us rather than the Greek one of -os (both second declension singular). Greek and Roman gods with similar attributes were frequently identified with each other, including the Greek Zeus with the Roman Jupiter, so that I see no objection to a joint category. Cronos is currently a dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2014 (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:Goldman Environmental Prize winners
- 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) 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Having received this award is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the recipients (e.g. here it's just one of a list of awards received). The main categorization for environmentalists is categories like Category:Kenyan environmentalists. For info: There is a list at Goldman_Environmental_Prize#Prize_winners. See WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This award goes to "grassroots environmental activists" from Africa, Asia, Europe, Islands and Island Nations, North America, and South and Central America. Each receives a whopping US$150,000 per recipient. That's pretty life-changing money for a grassroots activist in, say, the developing world. It's awarded by an international journey. Are we sure this isn't a defining characteristic for honourees, in line with WP:OC/AWARD? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That amount of money may be life-changing for some people, but in other cases (example) having received the award isn't even (currently) mentioned in the article. DexDor (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not confident enough on this one to record a !vote either way. What's more, I'm sure in my early days here I'd created an awards cat or two that might not pass muster. But not recently, I assure you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This award is not defining in general to the recipients. There is a very high threshold for award categories, and this does not pass it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- another unnecessary award winners category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2014 (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:Indianapolis Prize winners
- 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) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Having received this award is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the recipients (e.g. here it's just one of a list of awards received). The main categorization for zoologists is categories like Category:American zoologists. For info: There is a list at Indianapolis_Prize#Recipients. See WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The first-place unrestricted cash prize of US$250,000, possibly the highest of any conservation award, makes the Indianapolis Prize a prestigious and desirable award. However, even after working on the article (diff), I can't say for sure that receiving the prize is defining; typically, prize winners are already well-known for their other work. I think that this might just pass the threshold for being a defining characteristic, but it is difficult to evaluate due to the fact that the award is only a few years old. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This award is not defining enough of its recipients to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- another unnecessary award winners category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2014 (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:Albanian nationalism
- 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: Reverse merge per C2C, convention of Category:Nationalism by country or region. The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rational: These two categories are about the exact same thing! Charles Essie (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That essentially what I wanted also, I should have made that more clear. Charles Essie (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2014 (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.