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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. If consensus is to do otherwise, then at the very least a comma is needed between Columbus and Ohio. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't it properly be (Columbus, Ohio, band)? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. probably - but hopefully the point is academic only. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 19 November 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.
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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Japan (band) and to disambiguate and make clear that this is not about albums from Japan or about Japan. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Unnecessary confusion with Category:Japanese albums or variants already given. Also highly suggest a rename on album The Very Best of Japan to include (album), since, ...well, that kind of explains itself as well. ♪daTheisen(talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, can't see any ambiguity since a typical reader will arrive at the category through a contextual link. HidingT 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that if a reader came across this subcategory in Category:English albums, and he didn't know about a band called "Japan", it wouldn't cause some confusion? That's pretty optimistic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think clicking on the category would solve the confusion, or that the confusion would be incredibly limited? I think you are over-egging the pudding to be honest. I am confident in an average reader's ability to discern the context through the easily accessible information, and since tradition is not to pre-emptively dab, I don;t see a need to. Another way of avoiding the dab phrase is to retitle the category to Category:Albums by the band Japan. HidingT 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on it likely would if they read the category and referred to its contents, but who says a reader's intent is to click on the category and do that? You are assuming what the readers' behaviour will be with respect to the category scheme. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make similar assumptions about what a reader does in category space yourself. However you seem to be implying a reader is not that confused since you don't believe they will seek clarification. HidingT 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming their actions will be limited to anything. I have assumed there are a wide range of activities that a reader could adopt towards category space. Some of these actions will not be completely clarified through any "contextual link" that you refer to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming a limit. You are assuming as limit to their ability to contextualise. I am not assuming any limit to that. HidingT 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was referring to when I referred to limiting, but whatever. I consider it safer to make the category unambiguous in and of itself. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hiding's faith in the ability of readers to figure things out is admirable, but misses the point. Further, category names do not always present themselves in a context that explains their contents; ever use HotCat? postdlf (talk) 22:49, 24 November 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.
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 both. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the main article Five (band) (I've moved it there per WP:TRADEMARK); disambiguation should be retained since the meaning of "Five songs" and "Five albums" is ambiguous and unclear. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, can't see any ambiguity since a typical reader will arrive at the category through a contextual link. HidingT 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination also involves changing "5ive" to "Five", not just disambiguation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? HidingT 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought you might want to suggest Category:Five songs and Category:Five albums as your preferred alternative, or express a preference to keep everything as is. You didn't address that part of the nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don;t have a particular yearning either way. They were created at "5ive" for one reason or another. HidingT 23:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; this should match the article and the disambiguation is helpful, even if not necessary. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 24 November 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.
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 both. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the main article Texas (band), and to disambiguate and make clear that these are not about Texas, from Texas, from the musicalTexas, or namedTexas. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, can't see any ambiguity since a typical reader will arrive at the category through a contextual link. HidingT 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that if someone came across one of these categories as a subcategory of Category:Scottish songs or Category:Scottish albums, and the reader didn't know there was a band called "Texas", it wouldn't cause confusion? That's pretty optimistic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't in all honesty think major confusion would ensue. I think the reader would be able to understand the purpose of the category incredibly quickly, and Wikipedia consensus is that we don't dab if we don't need to. HidingT 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any possible confusion or likely confusion? HidingT 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing human beings and appreciating the vast variety of ways different minds work, there is not much daylight between the standards of "possible" and "likely". People seem to find a way. :) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is an obvious one. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 24 November 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.
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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Seven (singer). Disambiguation should be retained since the meaning of "Seven albums" is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, can't see any ambiguity since a typical reader will arrive at the category through a contextual link. HidingT 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination also involves changing "Se7en" to "Seven", not just disambiguation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? HidingT 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought you might want to suggest Category:Seven songs and Category:Seven albums as your preferred alternative, or express a preference for keeping as is. You didn't address that part of the nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I think the only instances in which we don't match category names to article titles is when we think the category needs even more disambiguation than the article; we certainly don't make category names less specific. See also Seven (film); without "(singer)" added to the title, this could be confused for a soundtrack category (and no, that's not completely implausible given that some films have multiple soundtrack albums released). postdlf (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At which point would there be ambiguity as to this being related to film soundtracks? HidingT 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were kept as is or renamed Category:Seven albums (which also absurdly implies a quantity of albums). Really, I don't understand your consistent opposition towards adding disambiguators to category names when their parent articles have the same disambiguators. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 24 November 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.
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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 19 November 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.
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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename as minor point of pedantry. Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom are described as MPs for a constituency (e.g. Tony Blair was "MP forSedgefield", rather than the "MP fromSedgefield"). Using the word "from" could be misinterpreted to mean an MP who was born in a constituency, rather than the person elected to represent that constituency in the British House of Commons. Please note that the slightly clumsy use of the phrase "United Kingdom" in the category titles is needed to clarify that these MPs were elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (established 1801) rather than to the earlier Parliament of Great Britain (1707–1800) or the pre-Union Scottish and English Parliaments. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All-- Grammar that could be misinterpreted, and the renames would match precedent in this area. Quite common for politicians to represent areas they weren't born in or spent more of their lives in. ♪daTheisen(talk) 05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per BHG's rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support basic nomination -- "for" is correct, sicne there is no obligation for an MP to live in his constituency. However, in the past there has been opposition to disambiguating constituencies by county. A category relating to Cornish constituencies was deleted some months ago. MPs do not necessarily sit for the same constituency in successive Parliaments, so that we may end off with a large number of categories. We have recently started categories for MPs by Parliament, eg Category:British MPs 1727-1734. This seems to me a much more useful way of categorising them than which county (or borough) they represent or which country their constituency is in. I would therefore propose that there should be a large number of mergers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not a fan of MPs-by-distruct/county/city categories, because they cause category clutter. However, in addition to 12 such categories in this list, there are a dozen or so other such categories, under Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. I suggest that any decision on whether to to upmerge them should be made by considering all of them together, rather than by appearing to single out the Scottish and Irish categories. So, please could we just do this renaming for now, and consider at a later date whether to do a mass upmerger? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re. the Dublin and Belfast categories - is it necessary to add the (1801-1922) disambiguator? Clearly in the case of Dublin, no UK MP has been returned from there since it ceased to be represented in the Commons in 1922. Given that fact, is the Members of the United Kingdom Parliament... element of the category name not disambiguation enough? Further, why is it necessary to differentiate between pre and post-1922 Belfast MPs? Belfast, then as now, continues to return MPs to the Commons - why is it necessary to distinguish between the two? --Xdamrtalk 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The dates on the Dublin category are there to avoid confusion amongst readers and editors, who might otherwise mistakenly think the category applies either to Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland or to members of Dáil Éireann. You and I know that the latter are called Teachtai Dála (TDs), but explicitness avoids confusion. It also follows the naming convention of the parent category Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Irish constituencies (1801-1922). Splitting the Belfast MPs allows Belfast MPs reflects the split in the paent categories, which allows pre-1922 Northern Irish MPs to be included in the all-Ireland category (because N. Ireland did not exist until partition). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that, though I am not wholly convinced that these categories add much value. But, as you say, probably best to review them all in one group nomination. --Xdamrtalk 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Though, the categories with dates should use en dashes (–), not regular dashes (-). — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 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.
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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are too few probabilistic complexity classes to have a separate category. Furthermore, dividing complexity classes into probabilistic and non-probabilistic is a fairly random way to divide complexity classes. Some complexity classes fall under both, so this only increases confusion. Lastly, Category:Complexity_classes is not so large that it needs to be divided into sub-categories. If it does, it will probably be better to use a more useful separation of classes. Robin (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. All reasons are invalid for deletion:(1) there are no "too few" classes, only too few wikipedia article yet (btw, 13 pages is not "too few" anyway IMO). (2) "a fairly random way" - no: this is a clean-cut way: deterministic vs. probabilistic computations (3) If fall into two categories, then we tag them by both categories (4) Category:Complexity_classes is not so large -- huuuge underestimation of the potential. - Altenmann >t 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think your argument would suggest that we should also have categories for non-deterministic complexity classes, quantum complexity classes, counting complexity classes, function complexity classes, circuit complexity classes, etc. Possibly the parent category should just be empty and all classes should be in one or more sub-categories. Then some classes would belong in many many sub-cats, for instance PSPACE can be defined using deterministic machines, probabilistic machines, quantum Turing machines, circuits, and interactive proof systems. Such an organizational structure can be built (and it will be consistent), but I feel it is too much over-categorization. --Robin (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PSPACE concept is an "orthogonal" to "prob vs determ", so I would suggest a different category altogether. Please keep in mind that categorization is usually done by certain "defining" characteristics of the subject, not by all possible equivalence theorems. For example, one would hardly expect all articles in category:graph theory classified according to subcategories of category:Algebra despite the fact that a (basic) graph is nothing byt a 0,1-matrix. - Altenmann >t 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and Altenmann. I know next-to-nothing about the subject, but this list of complexity classes currently has 489 entries, so there is plenty of scope for more articles in this field. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 18 November 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:Former members of the National Assembly of South Africa[edit]
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.
Merge as nom. As stated we do not do "former" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator and copious precedence. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 19 November 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:Heads of Permanent Private Halls of the University of Oxford[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Far too deep a category... only has one entry which is already mentioned in the parent-type article. Very few Universities even have articles for the residence halls at all and I can find zero precedent for something like this. ♪daTheisen(talk) 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPermanent Private Halls are not residence halls but institutions with their own admissions and teaching staff, technically different from colleges, but effectively the same thing on a smaller scale. Nom seems based on a misunderstanding. There must be plenty more articles that could be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, as category creator. Zero precedent? Well, you obviously didn't find Category:Heads of Colleges of the University of Oxford in your brief research. I only created the category today, as a parallel for the Heads of Colleges category, for an article I was writing about a Principal of St Stephen's House, Oxford (which is not a college, and so the principals would not belong in the "Heads of Colleges" category). As Johnbod says, there are plenty of names that can be added here - for example, Henry Wansbrough was Master of St Benet's Hall, rather than an "ordinary" Fellow. BencherliteTalk 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately notable as above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Heads of Colleges" a tad different (to me) than "Heads of Permanent Private Halls" and looked like an instance of digging way too deep for a category, but point now taken. I have no problem withdrawing as nominator in another day or so if consensus stays like this, and that the category has grown beats half my concerns, and I'm out of objections so long as it's listed on the pages of each person. I don't mind being beat if articles get better :p ♪daTheisen(talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is clearly based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Permanent Private Halls, and should really have been withdrawn as soon as that misunderstanding had been clarified. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- Oxford halls and colleges are not mere halls of residence (usual UK term). I would certainly oppose a category for the heads of halls of residence elsewhere, and perhpas even for the colleges of Durham, Lancaster and York Univerities, which I suspect are little more than halls of residence (though I am not certain). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 18 November 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Highly misleading name as the category is only meant for dog breeds.. Pitke (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an established standard in dog breeding for what constitutes "rare"? Rare breed (dog) does not seem to set one forth. I'm additionally concerned that all that article has done is take the common meaning of "rare" + "breed". If it is not a technical term or term of art in breeding, then I don't see how it's a proper article subject, in which case it's not a proper category subject. postdlf (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This category name should be reserved to be a parent from rare breeds of cattle, pigs, etc - as well as dogs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on until "rare" is defined with some certainty (and if not, perhaps delete). Does FCI recognize any breed as "rare"? 78.107.117.194 (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Also would set the definition as being recognised by a rare breeds society for instance the American Rare Breeds Association. Miyagawa(talk) 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, and leave defining of "rare" for later. Let's fix what can be fixed. I am told in Korea this category has been interpreted to mean ""rare" as the opposite of "well done". Debresser (talk) 14:18, 19 November 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:Rolling Stone Magazine 500 greatest songs of all time[edit]
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary categorization of a subjective list from a single issue of a magazine. The article, The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, seems to adequately cover this subject. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that a song is on the Rolling Stone list tends to be mentioned in most of the relevant song articles. It is useful for research to have such a category, and we already have a lot of music award cats and music chart cats, etc, so the principle is well established. SilkTork *YES! 10:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number-one song on a chart will always be a number-one song. This is so subjective, you have to assume the end of time occured in 2004. --Wolfer68 (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the list of 500 greatest songs is not an award as you have categorized it. The only songs categorized under any specific award are award winners, not runners-up or nominees. The same goes with chart categories. The only songs getting categorized are chart-toppers, not number two or number 100. --Wolfer68 (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Editorial lists like this are not the equivalent of major industry awards, and would only proliferate out of control if we permitted them. This category brings to mind what I think was the very first CFD I ever participated in (though admittedly not as bad as that category was). postdlf (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Such lists are published all the time and are not a suitable basis for categories. (I note that 352 of the 500 are American, and the top 2 both contain the phrase 'Rolling Stone'.) It must be said however that the list is by no means equivalent to the category as it only gives the top 10. Occuli (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per postdlf. Awards categories such as this can easily proliferate, causing category clutter on those articles where the subject has received multiple such award; and in any case such awards are rarely a defining characteristic of the subject. This sort of award is much better handled by a list. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 18 November 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.
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. The consensus is that the Category:Salons is not acceptable. While the proposed merge target may not be the best, it is also not unacceptable. Once the merge is completed, Category:Salon-holders can be nominated for a rename if anyone wants to consider the possibility of a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This category is categorizing the people who held salons; it is not categorizing salons themselves. If kept, would need to be renamed Category:Salon (gathering) to match main article and disambiguate. There might also be some benefit to renaming and merging both categories to Category:Salonnières, since that is typically the word that is used in French and English for Salon-holders. "Salon-holders" is kind of an awkward translation of the French term. The latter suggestion is my preference, but either is OK. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on English usages. A google search of English-language pages gives around 7,700 hits for "salonnières", so it certainly is used in English. It's not super common, but nor is the topic of salons in general. It seems to be the word that is most commonly used when salons are discussed, especially in the academic literature. That being said, it is a French-language term. "Hostesses of salons" gets about half as many google hits, but it pretty much evens out if you include "salon hostesses". The proportion is more heavily weighted towards "salonnières" if the search is limited to google scholar. "Salon holders" gets less than 300 in a regular google search, so it for sure is not the way to go. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Salonnière" is not in the print OED, but of course may be used in specialist literature, like any foreign term. I imagine it is mostly used in italics. "Hostesses of" is certainly clearer for those who don't know the term. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Salonnière" is in fact the 1989 second edition of OED. It is defined as "A woman who holds a salon; a society hostess." It is a French-language word that has been adopted into English, similar to Ancien Régime. Typically we go with such adopted words when they are more common than the English-language alternatives in English. But if the term is thought to be too obscure due to the relative obscurity of the topic of salons in general, that would be understandable. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Disambiguate-- I'm in no position to flip through the etymology of this all, but from a Wikipedia usage standpoint and less something that's precision in translation, there's such a huge list of disambiguations in the Wikipedia Salons redirect and Salon articles that is warrants separations for specific definitions. In other words, please accommodate for a smaller cross-culture vocabulary to make sure everyone can end up "where they want to go" if they search or head to base term. ((I admit this is a practicality view and not a 100%-per-guidelines use. User:Good Ol'factory is on with the details.)) ♪daTheisen(talk) 05:21, 18 November 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.
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 both. — ξxplicit 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Categories contain list articles only. (It's been a long-standing convention that we don't categorize actual actor articles by role in a series, but we have lists for these things.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match and clarify contents. postdlf (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, for clarity. The current category names imply that they may be added to article on individual actors, and the renaming will avoid any such confusion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 18 November 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.
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 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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This does not appear to me a defining characteristic of a rap act. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Could refer to rap acts that contain, did a duet with, had a collaboartion, or even did a one-time performance. Far too broad in scope. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created this category and so I know for sure that this category is not for ones who "did a duet with, had a collaboartion" etc. but for rap acts who perform with a live band on a regular basis. Netrat (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's rationale is just a personal opinion and is not based on and any Wikipedia rules. Performing with a live band on a regular basis is rather uncommon in rap music, so this is notable for its own category. Netrat (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response "Not based on and [sic] Wikipedia rules?" WP:CAT explicitly says "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Ambiguously worded and probably not defining. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:05, 25 November 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Non-standard naming. Upmerge to parent category. Tassedethe (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This doesn't accomplish anything but add an extra, unnecessary navigational step. Postdlf (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to Category:Categories by county of Oregon to match Category:Categories by state of the United States. "Non-standard naming" is true of any new category system, but that's not a reason to merge/delete. The question is, does this make sense and otherwise work with WP:CAT, and I think on some levels it does, plus it is simply a lower level version of the Category:Categories by state of the United States. As the encyclopedia grows there will be more and more need to move classifications down to prevent categories from becoming unwieldy big, and by county is an easy way to do this for US items. There are already 5 subcats in this cat and I know of at least one other that could be added, and most (if not all) of these subcats are standard subcats. As in Transportation in X County is a standard category, thus collecting all of these into one category (Transportation by county in State Name) helps keep Transportation in State Name from becoming too cluttered with a mix of location and types of transportation. Then, as I said before, collecting all of these makes sense. Here it helps keep Category:Oregon counties from becoming cluttered with 5 new cats that are topic specific, with more to come in time. Right now you have only two cats that can easily be sorted to the top, and the remainder are the actual county cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Categories by location in Oregon to permit categories by city and metro area to be grouped together with counties as geographic subsets of Oregon. This keeps the main categories clear of the clutter, but provides a category that is large enough to stand on its own, and can be further subdivided by city or county if ever warranted in the future. "By county" by itself is premature, considering that such trees are not common even in much more populous states.- choster 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I recommend relisting this for further discussion; I'd do it myself had I not already participated in this. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked at this to see if a close was possible. I did not see the rename as workable as this would appear to be OCAT since it creates a series of very small categories. The merge proposed does not really address that OCAT problem but does at least remove an extra level of navigation. Maybe the approach here is that we should only have these categories when there are sufficient content for the category. The nominated category and the contents seem to be building a top down structure even when it may not be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OCAT isn't just about small categories. For the too small part to apply it has to be too small AND no room for growth. As I mentioned in the original discussion, there is room for growth in the is category under discussion. Now, if you mean the categories within this category, then what is too small? For me, I shoot for ten articles minimum in a category as a general room (the guideline says too few, which is open to interpretation, but often means less than three, and the examples given I believe would all have less than 10 articles with little potential for growth). As for me when creating cats, I try not to start categories unless there will be a minimum of 10 articles to go into it either immediately or in a reasonable amount of time (covering the no room for growth of OCAT), with exceptions (as covered by OCAT) where a category would be part of a larger set-up. For instance, I believe I created and populated all the "transportation in county" cats for Oregon, and made a cat for every county that had at least 10 articles to go in it, and that created something like 32 of those cats, leaving four counties without. I then made those counties so that they would match what was then the vast majority of the counties. Now the other cats in this cat (with the exception of the museum ones) I did the same thing, except there, only some of counties had enough to populate the cat, so there was no overwhelmingly majority of county level cats to justify a universal system. With the museum ones, I had nothing to do with them and do consider that to be OCAT since most have so few and are rather unlikely to grow much. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Categories by county of Oregon I'm surprised that similar categories don't exist for the 49 other states and this is a necessary and relevant means of grouping these categories together for navigation purposes. Closing this as a merge dumps several categories with a direct and defining connection to each other into what amounts to a laundry list of each of Oregon's counties, "saving" a step at the cost of making it harder for anyone to ever find these categories. Once a name is settled upon I will create a corresponding category for New Jersey and a similar effort ought to be made under what should be the parent Category:Categories by county of the United States (or some variant thereof). Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might or might not be outside the scope of this discussion, but I don't think it makes sense to subcategorize everything by county. The divisions often end up far too small (see how many subcategories of Category:Museums in Oregon by county only have one article), as most notable features in most states will cluster around metropolitan areas and are otherwise sparsely distributed. But most importantly, most worldwide readers of Wikipedia are not going to be interested in what county something is located in, and we should not force readers to navigate through such localized divisions. People whose primary interest is Oregon may prefer or at least not mind county divisions, but people whose primary interest is museums, for example, are likely not going to care about counties and not going to want to navigate through them. Landmarks can be subcategorized by county (either directly or in more generalized categories) without splitting specific categories that should be maintained only at the state level. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the nice things about our category system is that there is no rigid hierarchical organization that someone must use to navigate through the category structure. No one interested in museums has to navigate through Category:Museums in Oregon by county to find a museum in that state as there are a whole assortment of structures within the parent Category:Museums that can be more effectively used for navigation even if one has never heard of any of Oregon's counties, as well as a plethora of synergistically overlapping lists, navigation boxes, articles and templates. While the weak link here may be museums, you have ignored Category:Education in Oregon by county (which includes school districts, colleges, etc.), Category:High schools by county in Oregon, Category:National Register of Historic Places listings by county in Oregon, Category:Oregon county navigational boxes, Category:People by county in Oregon and Category:Transportation in Oregon by county, all of which (including NHRP-listed places) are rather effectively organized by county and all of which have similar structures in all 49 other states, even if they are not all yet fully populated and organized by county. There will always be a borderline case, but I fail to see how a borderline case ever justifies deletion of an entire category structure, and certainly not this one. Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't delete all -by county categories (probably people by county, but not necessarily the other ones you list). I just want to urge restraint when it comes to categorizing by county, because it doesn't always make sense, and overly localized categories can just be a burden. And while there may not be a rigid hierarchical organization, some categories are clearly subdivisions of others, such that the existence of Category:Museums in Oregon by county naturally subdivides Category:Museums in Oregon; an article redundantly placed in both Category:Museums in Clackamas County, Oregon and Category:Museums in Oregon would be removed from the latter in favor of the former, more specific category. Now a good response may be that the museum articles are all otherwise organized at the state level by type. But then I still look at it from the other direction, and see that a category like Category:Jefferson County, Oregon has a museum category for only one museum article, and other than a transportation and a people category, no other subcategories, and only 34 articles in the county category. postdlf (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The museum categories are just being discussed as related here; they aren't actually tagged for this CFD so they are not formally under consideration. If you wish to tag them for merger, the instructions are here. postdlf (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this would be a good idea and would support that nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very hard to keep track of the cfd discussions, but specifically about the Museums in <State> by county categories, I think the relevant part of OCSMALL is "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," I'm just finishing Virginia on my alphabetical journey through all the US states (please feel free to go look at my contribs), I've been normalizing all of the museum cats to typically have a Location Cat (at either City or County level) and at least one Type Cat at the state level. This was discussed extensively at WP:Museums as well as several times along the way as people saw "their state" touched. Much effort was made to keep the Type cats at the appropriate level. For example, Category:Asian art museums in the United States vs Category:Art museums in New York. Even though New York City has more art museums than many states, we kept the type cat at the state level. In general, after some thought, people seemed to agree there there were some judgement calls, but the system worked. Oddities include Idaho (so few museums it was easier to put them at the city level) and Virginia (where certain "free" cities do not actually reside in a county). Anyway, if the Museums crowd seems ok with this, does that mee the "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"? dm (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. I would agree with merging here. I don't think there's enough to justify an intermediate step, especially since this isn't part of a wider scheme that has been adopted in the categories for other U.S. states. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the subcategories are already members of a good parent at the state level. Breaking out at this level is not necessary for most counties and really does not help improve navigation. For something like Los Angeles County this might be a good idea, but it is not a good idea for all of the Oregon counties. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Categories by county of Oregon as suggested above. Counties are a critical element in the governmental structure of most U.S. states. While counties are often a neglected area of academic studies of US local government, there is no reason for WP to contribute to that neglect. In rural states and rural parts of states, the county is the significant local social, political and government structure. This category structure found in Oregon should be extended to all US states structured with counties/parishes/boroughs. Hmains (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for more content about counties, but not one for filtering every state subcategory scheme through them. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not and will not argue to filter every state level category through counties. I am only stating that some county level categories are very appropriate at the county level and they should not be deleted up to the state level for some arbitrary reason or another. And given that there will be categories at the county level, there is no harm and perhaps some navigational help to group them together. Hmains (talk) 21:22, 26 November 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.
