November 15
Category:Nuclear companies of Russia
- 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. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: I listed this category for deletion to create a discussion what to do with it (the result of discussion could be also renaming or merging). This is a newly create category without any instruction which articles belongs to this category (e.g. does it includes only companies related to nuclear energy or also producers of nuclear weapons, companies engaged in the nuclear physics etc). There is also no parent categories added to this category. As now, there is no other categories named 'Nuclear companies of X'. However, there are several categories named 'Nuclear power companies of X' but there is no such category for Russia (see category:Nuclear power companies by country). One option could be that this category would be renamed category:Nuclear power companies of Russia to be in line with similar categories. Disadvantages of this option are that the term nuclear is more narrow than just nuclear (but putting together nuclear energy companies and nuclear weapons manufacturer is probably not the good idea either), and that most of companies listed in this category are already covered by category:Rosatom which is the state-owned corporation including all Russia nuclear energy companies. So, my preference is just to delete this category, but am open also for other options. Beagel (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A rename to Category:Nuclear power companies of Russia, C2C to other countries, seems more appropriate than deleting. In addition the category may be purged from companies that aren't nuclear power companies, while Category:Rosatom may be added as a child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards keep -- This seems to cover a wider range of the nuclear industry than just power generation, though most are power-related. For example there are nuclear engineering companies. I think the suggested rename would limit its scope. I have no doubt that most are state owned, or at least controlled; indeed I would be scared if they were not, but that is beside the point. We have a variety of companies, with a variety of differing functions. I think one appropriate course might be to leave it as it is, with its variety of parents. This may result in some categories having inappropriate grandchildren or great grandchildren, but does that matter unduly? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2015 (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:Video game articles with comments
- 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) 03:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: CSD was declined earlier on the grounds that it could be an empty project cat, but if it ever was, it was deprecated a long time ago. There is no future use for this template. czar 17:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; if kept the name should be prefaced by "Wikipedia" since this is not encyclopedic but apparently administrative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2015 (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:Folk museums
- 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent Category:Folk culture and to avoid mistaking "folk" as "folk music" or reducing it to so-called "folk museums" synonymous with Open-air museum. PanchoS (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – "Folk museum" is a much more standard term than "Folk culture museum". 868,000 hits vs. 13,200 on Google – i.e., over 65 times as many hits. We should stick to standard terminology unless there is very good reason to change it. Most folk museums are more about "Folk heritage" than culture in any case. "Folk heritage museum" receives 69,000 hits – i.e., over 5 times as many hits as "Folk culture museum". I don't think we should be splitting "folk heritage" and "folk culture" for museums anyway since the terms are intertwined and loosely differentiated. "Folk museum" covers both. A folk museum may or may not be an open-air museum. Many are, but the two are not synonymous. There are 12,900 hits for "folk music museum" (similar to "folk culture museum"). It may be possible to argue for a category for this, but I am not sure if there are enough of them to warrant it. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Folk heritage is more to the point, but I do not see the need for a change. If anything is needed it is ensuring that there is a good headnote defining its scope, as related to the way ordinary people lived in the past. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys convinced me that my proposal isn't necessraily a better solution, so I'm withdrawing the rename request. Sorry for the noise. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2015 (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.