Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 29

< April 28	April 30 >

April 29

Category:Natural gas-fired power stations

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. Kbdank71 14:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gas-fired power stations in Australia to Category:Natural gas-fired power stations in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More precise standard naming for this series categories. Other categories to be renamed:

Beagel (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Please: Most of these categories have not been properly tagged for renaming. Cgingold (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename all to eliminate ambiguity as to what type of gas is being used.Hmains (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any other type of gas-fired power station? Looking at this, most of which are industry or government links, I see only one that uses the qualifier "natural". We should attempt to follow the real world where possible as at the end of the day, that's what readers expect us to do. Orderinchaos 07:02, 5 May 2009 (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:Grid connected photovoltaics

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 (upmerge per Vegas to keep the article categorized). Kbdank71 14:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization, only one article in this category. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge to Category:Electric power transmission systems. The only article does not have any other categories and this appears to be the only one needed. If someone wishes to suggest an upmerge to both parents I will not object, but I'm not convinced that we need it in both. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2009 (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:Petroleum companies of Norway

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. Kbdank71 14:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Petroleum companies of Norway to Category:Oil companies of Norway

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming of this series categories. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2009 (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:Mineral thin-film cells

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. Kbdank71 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Also, does not needed fot multiply categorization systems. Beagel (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2009 (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:Condit Hydroelectric Project

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. Kbdank71 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2009 (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:Natural gas fields of Iran

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. Kbdank71 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natural gas fields of Iran to Category:Natural gas fields in Iran

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard name of categories in this series. Beagel (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2009 (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:Oil-fueled power stations

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. Kbdank71 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oil-fueled power stations to Category:Oil-fired power stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More common name. "Oil-fired power" has 54,700 hits against 1,840 for "oil-fueled power". It will be in line with other oil-fired power stations series. Similar categories to be renamed:

Beagel (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Please: The sub-categories have not been properly tagged for renaming. Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (once tagged). BTW, ISTR that Canada uses the UK spelling of "fuelled" anyway, no? Grutness...wha? 00:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename so all are consistent with other power station naming Hmains (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (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:Coal power stations in Albania

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. Kbdank71 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coal power stations in Albania to Category:Coal-fired power stations in Albania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with coal-fired power stations series. Also rename: Category:Coal power stations in Romania to Category:Coal-fired power stations in Romania. Beagel (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename so all are consistent with other power station naming Hmains (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (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:Hydroelectric power plants by 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: relisted on may 7 because the cats weren't tagged. Kbdank71 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country to Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with other categories in power station series, including the parent directory Category:Hydroelectric power stations. Similar discussion was held here. If necessary, redirect may be created.

Similar categories to rename according to the same principle:

Other similar categories to be renamed:

Beagel (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and per the likes of Category:Power stations in Albania and its siblings in Category:Power stations by country. Occuli (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention Please: On the basis of a spot check, only Category:Hydroelectric power plants by country appears to be tagged for renaming. All of the others need to be tagged as well -- you might want to request help from a Bot. Cgingold (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please assist with requesting bot assistance. Thank you.Beagel (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a group nomination. Outside of industry usage, in the US power plant is the common name. So at least in the US, it is not clear that these need to be renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it is worth noting that it is a subcategory of Category:Power stations in the United States, and every country uses the term "stations" at that level in the categorisation system. I don't see any problem with changing all of these Hydro ones to station, and thus support the rename, but if there are UK/US issues they will need to be addressed for the parent category too. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the discussion that created the US parent, was far from unanimous. A condition of that rename was to leave a redirect behind in recognition of the US difference in usage. I see no reason to rename the children when that is the more common US usage. Renaming the parent to make navigation to the US category easier when both terms are in use was not unreasonable. This proposal to rename all of the state categories goes too far in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but check first I know in Australia, the two terms are completely interchangeable and the official use is Power Station. That goes for all of the Australian and New Zealand categories, but check local usage elsewhere. Orderinchaos 09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I grouped the Australian, Canadian and US subregions, which may make it easier if this group nom needs to be broken up. Orderinchaos 10:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Power stations" is the more common term here in New Zealand. The common assumption that Aussie and Kiwi English are identical isn't true. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies if it seemed I'd assumed they were identical - I checked the NZ category before posting my comment, and like the Australian category, the NZ ones used "Power Stations". In this particular instance they do use the same word (although I like my mobile phones and my freeways :P) Orderinchaos 04:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be consistent with other power station categories, the country level headings (including the United States) should use "power station" (with redirect from the power plant named category, if necessary). However, I have nothing against if it would be decided that the U.S. states categories should use "power plant". Beagel (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm tending to think we should exclude the US categories from this particular rename - there's no harm in the subcat being different as long as they mean the same thing. i.e. The top level category contains only power "stations" even if some sublevels happen to call them power "plants". Orderinchaos 04:16, 5 May 2009 (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:Wind parks in Sweden

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. Kbdank71 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wind parks in Sweden to Category:Wind farms in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with other categories in the Wind farms in ... series. Beagel (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename so all are consistent with other such facilities Hmains (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (note that wind park redirects to wind farm). Robofish (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2009 (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.

Broadcasters

Category:Test Match Special commentators

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) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Test Match Special commentators to Category:Cricket commentators

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Performer by performance; these are people who have appeared on a BBC show called Test Match Special and commentators, not defining for the people - who are all known in the area well prior to appearing on the show. We have a long precedent of people by show categories are non-defining and deletable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (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:Little League World Series broadcasters

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) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining for the people categorized; we have a list List of Little League World Series broadcasters which is sufficient, rather than clogging up bios with this performer by performance category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (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:Triple Crown broadcasters

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) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Same as the Kentucky Derby broadcasters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No objection to a listify for all of these into a single article if anyone thinks that we need to organize this information. However based on the discussion here and below, I don't see a reason to keep the categories while any editor makes a decision on creating a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (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:Preakness Stakes broadcasters

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) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Same as the Kentucky Derby. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Triple Crown broadcasters 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2009 (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:Belmont Stakes broadcasters

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) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. same as the Kentucky Derby broadcasters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Triple Crown broadcasters 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2009 (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:Kentucky Derby broadcasters

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) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining for the categorized people, performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete as nominated - overcategorization of performer by performance event. Existing lists preserve the information. Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Triple Crown broadcasters 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your !vote on these categories. You are suggesting merging the broadcasters of the three Triple Crown races to the Triple Crown broadcasters category, but you're saying to listify the TC broadcasters category. "Listify" generally means "listify and delete". Can you clarify? Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the Triple Crown category is kept, then these should be merged into it. If not, then these will still have been deleted. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2009 (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:Hotel executives

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: I'm not sure myself why these are different, but since I'm just the closer, no consensus. Kbdank71 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hotel executives to Category:Hoteliers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge two categories that basically cover the same area. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the whole. "Hoteliers" is part of the "chief executives" tree, & supposed to be for owners, chairmen, CEOs. I expect some of these should really be moved to populate the executives cat, for which there are surely more notable candidates. The distinction seems worth preserving. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll point out that neither article currently included supports the individuals being in the category. So if there are some others then keeping the category may make sense. Or maybe a rewrite of the articles to show that this is defining for the individuals.(sez Vegas?)

"Jacob Truedson Demitz wears The Beverly Hills Hotel’s five-year gold pin, from work 1976-1984 as Front Desk Manager and Duty Manager there" - seems enuf. Boesky should be in the hoteliers (for the same hotel) if his exact title is unmentioned. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boesky was Chairman of the Board of The Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation according to his biographers. 217.209.96.110 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So those are executive positions? I think the problem there is the question, what makes being an executive for a single hotel defining? Maybe for a few hotels, say one with 5,000 rooms might qualify or maybe based on some other significant criteria. But then this raises the issue of being POV. For me this category might be more correctly named Category:Hotel company executives which would more likely be defining for the individuals. But then how is this really different from Category:Hoteliers? Is the action her to merge both into Category:Hotel company executives? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Hotel executive" is far more descriptive of the role that best captures the individuals included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting a reverse merge? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is a difference. A Hotel executive is a manager of a hotel company. A hotelier will usually be the proprietor: one is the owner, the other the manager. Possibly merge both to Category:Hotel managers. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't see the need for a separate category here, given that they cover similar ground, and at least some of the people in these categories belong in both. I don't have any strong preferences on the name of the merged category, though; either of these would be appropriate, or the Category:Hotel managers suggested above. Robofish (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Seems there aren't that many listed people yet and aren't likely to be a huge amount in the future either. One category should suffice. Suggest calling it Hoteliers and hotel executives. There are distinct differences which has been well explained above, especially that hotelier = owner/proprietor. Companies should not be a part of the discussion at all though. Hotel executives are any and all persons belonging to the executive staff of any individual hotel (they have higher profiles and are more well known) or any person in any executive position with any hotel company (they are less well known), and the comprehensive term should not be redefined by WP. Executive staffs at hotels may vary, but at large and/or first class properties almost always include department heads who hire their own departmental employees, attend staff meetings and execute policy (reservation managers, front office managers, front desk managers, communication/PBX directors, public relations managers, executive housekeepers, banquet managers, food & beverage managers, bell captains/concierges, chiefs of security, pool managers, valet/garage managers, credit managers, comptrollers, personnel directors, etc.). Any general manager, hotel manager, duty manager or assistant manager who has been scheduled as solely in charge of any hotel during day or evening shifts is always considered a hotel executive in the most crucial and literal sense. These people have absolute power over an entire property and legally represent owners, internally and externally, when on duty. A quirk of sorts is that night managers however (working only graveyard shifts 11-7 or 12-8), are usually not called hotel executives (somewhat unfair given their considerable responsibility as guests sleep) since regular clerks usually fill these positions. Encyclopedic relevancy criteria will automatically take care of preventing the category from becoming overcrowded with thousands of unknown hotel executives, since they would have to be notable in the hotel business, and/or some other capacity, to warrant a WP article. Debbie Reynolds's fame was as an actress, for example, but she should also be categorized here. I am an expert in this field, though I apologize for not feeling comfortable about identifying myself. What I have stated here can easily be verified as factual and basic. Best regards! 217.209.96.110 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate Our coverage of fields like this is very inadequate, and i see no basis for assuming there will not be more in the future. DGG (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2009 (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:Harper's Island

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) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete small eponymous category for a TV show which, since it is a 13-episode limited series, is unlikely to expand. Otto4711 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Robofish (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As I've noted before, there seems to be an increasingly prominent assumption among certain editors that every television series is inherently entitled to an eponymous category regardless of the actual need. Given the anemic ratings it's apparently been getting, I'm also not sure we even need separate articles about each individual episode rather than a single List of Harper's Island episodes, or that we need a separate character list at all, but those are separate issues. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (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:Voivodeships of Poland topics

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) 10:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Voivodeships of Poland topics to Category:Voivodeships of Poland

Nominator's rationale: I created this category (the "topics" one) as a logical move, to separate the "list category" (articles whose subjects are particular voivodeships) from the "topic category" (articles or subcategories relating to voivodeships in general), per WP:CAT. However, looking at them, it seems perhaps an unnecessary complication, and I would suggest merging the two categories back into one. I would suggest calling such a merged category a "list-and-topic" category (in fact I've jumped the gun a bit by including that new type of category in my work on {{catdesc}} and WP:FAQ/Categories). What do people think - is this specific pair of categories best merged into one (as it used to be), and should we acknowledge the appropriateness of this combined type of category by mentioning it in the guidelines? Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - interesting nom. I think the present set-up is more elegant, but that the name Category:Voivodeships of Poland topics is at first sight clumsy. The usual method is to use a singular noun for the topic category and the plural for the list subcat (eg Category:Wine and Category:Wines) but a singular here seems elusive and besides the more clunky fomulation of 'XXX topics' might be more obviously seen to be a 'topics' category. Occuli (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. While a separate category might technically be mandated here, I don't think it's really necessary - all of the contained articles and subcategories could be contained in Category:Voivodeships of Poland without too much confusion, I think. Robofish (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. There might well be scope to create a new category for the list-type articles as a sub-cat of Category:Lists of country subdivisions or similar. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (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:Music videos directed by Clifton Collins, Jr.

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) 10:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow with no hope of expansion. Clifton doesn't usually direct videos; according to his website, he only directed Zac Brown Band's videos and one other. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but i got confused when you told me that this type of category was okay. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category:Music videos by director. The director is a defining characteristic of a music video. Occuli (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – neither of the articles even mentions Collins (and Whatever It Is doesn't mention video except in Ext links). So much for defining. Occuli (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2009 (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:The Pretender

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) 10:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category with no growth potential. All contents linked through main article and navtemplate. Otto4711 (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not what categories are for. Robofish (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2009 (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:Syria–Turkey relations

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/delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Syria–Turkey relations to Category:Bilateral relations of Syria and Category:Bilateral relations of Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as an uneeded category and per the result of this discussion. When the only page in the category is the main article, it is not needed. If by some chance new articles surface, it can always be recreated. Tavix | Talk 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This makes perfectly good sense and should apply in all other similar cases. Cgingold (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to more effectively categorize a single article. Alansohn (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2009 (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.