Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

May 7

Category:Serbia–Syria 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:04, 7 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:US-Canada border towns

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) 05:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Talk page discussion has identified this as an unwanted and unnecessary WP:OCAT on a relatively minor geographic characteristic defined by an arbitrary inclusion standard ("within five miles"). For those places where an actual border crossing facility is located, this ends up duplicating an existing category, Category:Canada-United States border crossings, for the usually separate articles on the facilities — but which also directly includes border towns whose crossing facility doesn't already have its own separate article. And for the places where there isn't an actual border crossing (e.g. Kingston), it essentially amounts to trivia since the lack of an actual border crossing means that being located near the border doesn't constitute a defining characteristic of the place. Kingston doesn't even meet the original inclusion criteria anyway: it's not on the border, but merely on the body of water in which the border is eventually located, with the entire municipality of Frontenac Islands separating it from the border by a distance of more than five miles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also because these are sufficiently covered by the list at Border town. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 8 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:Edmonton LRT 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. Note that Category:Edmonton LRT also exists and has not been renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Edmonton LRT stations to Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found this doing cleanup. Is was an incomplete nomination from a different name to the current name. One editor apparently moved the contents to this name without a discussion. The proposed name follows the name of the parent article and removes the abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 7 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:Max Schreck

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 to Category:Images of actors and actresses for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category containing nothing but the lead article and an inappropriate image gallery. Otto4711 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it could be renamed to Category:Max Schreck images, subcat of Category:Images of actors and actresses, or the images could be upmerged to Category:Images of actors and actresses (not at present a large category but presumably there are thousands of potential members). Occuli (talk) 21:12, 7 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:Jessica Harp 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: Delete. Could be created in future if needed to house article about solo album. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, not needed to hold the single redirect and categorizing band album categories in a category for each member of the band is pointless and not entirely accurate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the redirect is to Jessica Harp which includes nothing much about the album; and indeed the Wreckers albums were recorded by the Wreckers and not by Jessica Harp solo, and are thus incorrectly subcatted. Occuli (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She does have a major label album only a couple months away from release, which will make this category necessary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the album becomes independently notable which per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume. If it does then the category can be recreated without prejudice. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a category just to contain a single redirect. If somebody can create a real, separate, properly sourced article about the album itself by closure, then keep — and if not, then delete until a real, separate, properly sourced article about the album itself actually exists, at which time permit recreation. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the album probably won't have an article on it anytime soon. I couldn't find any sources on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:31, 7 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:Michelle Branch

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) 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Another small eponymous musical category. I have no idea why people want these kept; all it does is categorize more categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for the material. Lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 18:10, 7 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:Jessica Harp

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) 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category. Category:Jessica Harp albums only contains a redirect and nothing else, only one song in the songs category. I really don't see a need for a category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for the material. Lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 7 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: rename all but US categories. Kbdank71 14:27, 26 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 (for all except US)~~, 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) Modified Orderinchaos 09:13, 8 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]
      - S'alright... but I'll stick with my cellphones and motorways :) Grutness...wha? 00:30, 8 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was going to close this as rename all except for the US ones when I noticed they still weren't tagged. This needs to be done or no work will be done. --Kbdank71 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May I suggest that you strike out the US ones and note that here. Kind of a partial decision. Then if the others are not tagged... Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose changing US nomenclature which will sound funny to US readers. 173.79.111.95 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- It appears that he meant support, except for US.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a case of different usage between USA and most other anglophone countries. American categories can be renamed if the Americans like it. However UK (and hence all European) categories should remain as "power station", as should NZ & Australia. The parent category should follow the greatest number of subcategories, since all the US States categories will be a subcategories of a USA parent, this almost certainly measn that the parent should remain "power station". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If I may clarify, you actually support renaming except the categories about the U.S. states? I think that there is already consensus that U.S. states' categories remain using "plant" while there is a need to rename other countries categories "station". Beagel (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- It appears that he meant support, except for US.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, as per my "vote" below, "this is a case of different usage between USA and most other anglophone countries except Canada is more accurate, i.e. the US and Canadian versions are not the same as in the rest of the anglosphere. YOu do see "hydrelectric generating station" in that construction, and it's rather formal sounding and not at all colloquial, but when used with "power" the usage is pretty much "plant" as a standard, at least as far as hydro goes.Skookum1 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, except for US subcategories.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for US categories. Other countries can speak for themselves. Power plant is universally used in the US. "Power station" sounds peculiar to an American ear.Student7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons similar to previous by Student7. "Power station" is a UK-ism, unless maybe in parts of Eastern Canada where I think I've heard it - but in reference to coal plants only, maybe in ON for nuclear ? I'm here because of the British Columbia category, where "power plant" is the normal usage, even for thermal (unless in formal titles like Burrard Thermal Generating Station, but that's not hydroelectric, and still gets referred to as "the Burrard plant" or "the Burrard power plant"). I'm from a Hydro family and was raised around powerhouses; and if we didn't say simply say "powerhouse" we said "plant" or "power plant". Canadian English for Canadian categories, essentially, ditto for the US.Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 22 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:El Milia Province

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) 05:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:El Milia Province to El Milia Province

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This ain't a category - it's an article in category space. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as the nom says. Occuli (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by what El Milia District says. It seems to be part of a different province so this should be deleted, right? Folk 55 (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. good point. El Milia isn't on the list of Provinces of Algeria, and the article you mention seems to confirm that it's just a district. In which case, unless anyone can find some reason for the suggestion that it's a province, deletion looks a better option. Mind you, it could be that this article is (even more confusingly) about the city of El Milia, which is the district capital, by the looks of it. P{erhaps deletion is still the best option, and if anyone wants to make a more coherent article on the city, they can start from scratch... Grutness...wha? 13:09, 8 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:National Lampoon's Animal House

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) 05:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following cleanup we are left with a small eponymous category with little or no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 8 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:Slap Shot (film)

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) 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category with no chance of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 8 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:Mrs. Doubtfire

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) 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category with no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 8 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:Current events Turkey

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) 05:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The parent category is for portals and clearly this is not a portal. The single entry is for a portal archive category, which probably does not need a parent category to list archives. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – the parent category is Category:Current events portals which lists curiously few portals and Category:Current events Canada is for some reason enormous. The 'archive' for Turkey contains just one event in 2007. All rather baffling. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Category:Current events leads to some interesting places. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - 2007 is not a current event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 8 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.