Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 28

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:*{{Lc|European people by ethnic or national origin}}

:*{{Lc|Europeans of Vietnamese descent}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry. Not a "by continent" naming convention. There are not so many countries that they need to be divided by continent, nor do continents need to be sorted by ethnicity. Adds nothing to navigation.

:--William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The national categories are enough. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments – there is :Category:People by continent, and there are :Category:Asian people by ethnic or national origin and :Category:African people by ethnic or national origin. So the nom is not entirely correct. Occuli (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:*(WP:OTHERSTUFF) I should have known there were more of these recent 2008 Mayumashu created landmines sitting around. Oh well, another category, another CfD for another day. Let's worry about this one for now.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and populate as per :Category:African people by ethnic or national origin Mayumashu (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and add the appropriate subcategories. DGG (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; OCAT by unnecessary race/ethnic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All Subcategories exist, and they just need to be organized within this structure and populated to serve as an effective aid to navigation by a strong defining characteristic. Despite the claims of OCAT, there is a rather clear defining connection between ethnicity and national origin within any given country. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both -- The first is a legitmate parent (but should normally only contain subcategories), but needs to be better populated. The second ought in theory primarily to be a parent for expatriate Vietnamese categories in various countries, but there seem to be too few notable people of Vietnamese descent in Europe to warrnat having more than a French subcategory: the finnish one might usefully be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 to :Category:Melodifestivalen songs. --Xdamr^talk 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Melodifestivalen songs of 2005}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete Merge to :Category:Melodifestivalen songs. A two entry category that is composed of songs that were candidates to represent Sweden in an international competition. All 45 Some of the songs are included in the main article. If the starting comments are favirable, I'll add the remaining like categories, there is a large number of these, all are small. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Queries – what are these 45 songs and which is the 'main article' (there are far more articles than one would hope)? Is the criterion any (notable) song that was entered into Melodifestivalen 2005? Eg why is Alcastar not there? I suppose I could see what other countries do re Eurovision contenders ... Occuli (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

:* The UK does not seem to have any comparable categories; eg Even If is just categorised in :Category:Eurovision songs of 2008 and :Category:British Eurovision songs. Perhaps it is a bigger deal in Sweden? Occuli (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Well, the main article from that category is :Melodifestivalen 2005. I see that Alcazar and :Alcastar are linked, but the entry in another table for :Alcastar is not linked. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

----

: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, after upmerging contents to {{Cat|Tic-tac-toe}}. All are already in appropriate subcategories of {{cat|Game shows}}. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|TV Tic-tac-toe}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename - Nominated once previously with no consensus. The existing name is awkward, so if retained it should be renamed. I suggest :Category:Tic-tac-toe television programs to align with the similar :Category:Poker television programs and :Category:Blackjack television programs. If this is deleted I'm fine with that too. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There's Tic-Tac-Dough, Hollywood Squares, and… a pricing game on TPIR? Not enough for a category, no likely chance of expansion given the move back to dumb luck based games á la Deal or No Deal and stripped down quizzers á la Million Dollar Password. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The format of the program is a clear defining characteristic of these programs. The popularity of the format makes it likely that there will be more such programs in the future as well as others outside the United States that may have been missed. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Upmerge to parent :Category:Tic-tac-toe. Such sub-categorization is unnecessary and the gameshows are variations of the game. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Blur to :Category:Blur (band)

:Nominator's rationale: Per the ambiguous Blur and Blur (band). Category names should never be more ambiguous than article names. Occuli (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename. To avoid ambiguity. — Σxplicit 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with arguments above and per numerous precedents. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename. There's no possible confusion here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: Do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Queen (band) to :Category:Queen

:Nominator's rationale: Although the band's article is disambiguated to Queen (band), its category needn't be. For example: Blur (band) and :Category:Blur. indopug (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – obviously, per the very ambiguous Queen, and I will nominate Blur asap. Occuli (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Occuli. No need to repeat here the confusion of a British MP visiting Argentina who accepted an invite to address the "Queen Appreciation Society". Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree per numerous precedents. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose name change per the two previous discussions on the topic. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Queen has many meanings - Elizabeth II has one notion of it, the LGBT community has another, and neither is likely Freddie M & company. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Rename In addition to the general rule that category titles should match those of the parent article, the current name makes it absolutely clear as to what's included while proposed rename makes it completely ambiguous. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here there is reasonable confusion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Belarusian Polish people to :Category:Polish people of Belarusian descent

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match others in :Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin, according to the policy at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)&oldid=296326550 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage].

:--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

::You always say that in these cases, and are always wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per nom accoring to long precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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: Renamed with an assist from Jéské Couriano. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Country singles with RIAA gold certification to :Category:Country singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America

:Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, good idea. Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question Didn't we have some nomination like this one not so long ago? And what was the result then? Debresser (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• We had Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_15#Category:Singles_certified_Gold_by_the_RIAA. So now I agree. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::For some reason, someone already created the renamed category, rather than let this process complete. Just a note of thought, though - no song should be added to these "gold" and "platinum" certification categories without it being properly sourced in the article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 all to {{cat|People from Sheffield}}. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|People from Sheffield (district)}}

:::Category:People from Attercliffe

:::Category:People from Beighton

:::Category:People from Broomhill

:::Category:People from Burngreave

:::Category:People from Chapeltown, Sheffield

:::Category:People from Crookes

:::Category:People from Darnall

:::Category:People from Ecclesall

:::Category:People from Ecclesfield

:::Category:People from Handsworth, South Yorkshire

:::Category:People from High Green

:::Category:People from Hillsborough

:::Category:People from Norton, South Yorkshire

:::Category:People from Stannington

:::Category:People from Stocksbridge

:::Category:People from Wadsley

:::Category:People from Woodhouse

:Nominator's rationale: Delete :Category:People from Sheffield (district); merge subcats into :Category:People from Sheffield. Someone from Sheffield will usually have lived in many sub-areas; being born in a particular area is not defining; 'from Sheffield' is enough; Sheffield (district) is a redirect to Sheffield. Occuli (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

: Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- These are mostly suburbs of the present city of Sheffield. Most were in the ancient parish of Sheffield (which was a large one. One might possibly have a category for people living in the original Sheffield settlement (ie the present city centre), but I doubt it is worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|English-language websites}}

:Nominator's rationale: Far too broad. Otterathome (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete – I fully agree but then I thought the same about :Category:English-language films. Occuli (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree per nominator. But this argument is a sharp knive... Debresser (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not defining for the website - and if there is a single word of English on an otherwise non-English website they get in here (per the uselessly lax standard in films)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 and leave redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Suggest merging :Category:Songs written by Mark Markwell to :Category:Songs written by Hugo Peretti and Luigi Creatore

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Mark Markwell is the pen name of Peretti & Creatore Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Merge – leave as a category redirect? Occuli (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and leave as a category redirect, since Mark Markwell was a pen name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Category redirect sounds good to me. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 (and yes, the nominated category will be deleted, which I add just to avoid confusion). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming deleting :Category:Hit songs written by Eric Carmen to :Category:Songs written by Eric Carmen

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. To remove the "weasel" word "hit". On pasting here I found that the same creator had also created the new cat with text added songs. The target category is now correct and the "Hits" category is empty. Richhoncho (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• So the proposal is "merge"? I agree with merging. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would think the word "hit" in this context is a weasel word and I wouldn't want too many weasels running through WP. So I would still suggest delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge which I think is what the nom intends. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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 to :Category:United States federal preemption law. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Federal preemption law (United States) to :Category:Federal preemption law

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was recently brought to speedy renaming, at which point a discussion got started, but did not finish before the category was speedy renamed as originally proposed, apparently by accident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=298697378&oldid=298696622] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working&diff=298697206&oldid=298676375] The previous discussion is copied here, behind the cut.--chaser (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

{{hidden begin

|toggle = left

|title = previous discussion

}}

• :Category:Federal preemption law (US) to :Category:Federal preemption law (United States) — Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't object to renaming, but I have my own idea about it. The parenthetical disambiguation is not necessary, so we don't need either "(US)" or "(United States)". Perusing preemption and linked articles, it appears that there is nothing else that would conflict with a category name of "federal preemption" or "federal preemption law". There seems to be no strong preference for either of those.--chaser (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you want to take this to a full CfD discussion? I'm up for it, if you don't mind. I just hate seeing "US" as an initialism, it bugs the crap out of me. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Other similar category names suggest that {{cl|United States federal preemption law}} would be the correct formula. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

{{hidden end}}

• Comment - Okay, this is weird...I don't believe I've ever seen such an occurrence at CfD. Anyway, my only objection to this renaming is that I'm not sure if any analogous doctrine exists in other federal countries (such as Germany, Mexico, India, Australia, etc.) then a disambiguator might be needed. However, this problem has not come up yet. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename to :Category:United States federal preemption law per commenters below. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:United States federal preemption law to match :Category:United States federal law 76.66.203.200 (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:United States federal preemption law per 76.66.203.200 and also per the parent :Category:United States law (and most of its siblings). Occuli (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:United States federal preemption law per my comments at speedy. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the last few comments. the nom will be grossly ambiguous, since other countries also have federal and provincial/state/lander laws. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

::The question is not whether they have laws but whether they enjoy sufficient concurrent jurisdiction with their federal governments and a tradition of local government that federal law would preempt. There is nothing on Wikipedia yet about preemption by other countries, so unless someone has a reliable external source, it's just guessing at this point to say other countries have a significant body of preemption law.--chaser (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Shuttlecock}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article, unlikely to expand. Upmerge to :Category:Badminton.MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as Shuttlecock is already in :Category:Badminton. Occuli (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

----

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Number-one singles in the Netherlands to :Category:Dutch Top 40 number-one singles

:Nominator's rationale: The parent article of this category refers to the music charts in the Netherlands, that being the Dutch Top 40. This category should be renamed to match that article. — Σxplicit 03:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per ever-growing precedent to rename categories by the chart name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with both previous editors. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

----

: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.