Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 23#Dinghies by designer

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < December 22

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | December 24 >

= December 23 =

== Category:African diasporas ==

: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. Courcelles 05:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

:{{Lc|African diasporas}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicates :Category:African diaspora. Goustien (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2010 (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.

== Category:West Slavic countries ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Courcelles 05:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

Image:Slavic europe.png comes in three colors]]

:{{Lc|West Slavic countries}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorizated = unneeded category -- Azar66 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • DeleteUpmerge This appears to have something to do with the coloring of the map at right, but since I can find no explanation for that I question the meaningfulness of this category. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to :Category:Slavic countries. I can see no justification for this separately category (Also, I note that there are no corresponding East Slavic countries and South Slavic countries categories.) However, it should be upmerged into the parent category. Davshul (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge Per Davshul. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Union College, New York alumni ==

: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 09:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Union College, New York alumni to :Category:Union College alumni

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match title of parent article Union College and make it easier for an editor to match the category to the parent. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep – this is a good example of an instance where the category needs a disambiguator as Union College (disambiguation) demonstrates; and there is eg :Category:Union College (Nebraska) alumni. (I might well favour :Category:Union College (New York) alumni as the article was earlier at Union College (New York). On the other hand there is {{cl|Union College, New York}}.) This has been discussed recently at cfd - it was a unanimous keep (apart from the nom). Occuli (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Rename article back to Union College (New York), and use "Union college" as a dabpage. The NY college may be the oldest and thus have a claim to primacy, but the dabpage lists six Union Colleges. The proposed target is dangerous, because it will attract entries from other colleges. For that reason, while the article on Birmingham, England is at "Birmingham", its categories are at Birmingham, England, so that it does not attract articles on Birmingham, AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Occuli and Peterkingiron, and rename the head article to restore the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename article. Per above. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico ==

: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. Courcelles 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

:Propose merging :Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico to :Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. The discussion to rename Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico pointed out that these are in fact drainage basins and not structural basins. So they should be merged into one unambiguously named category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Historical nations of Poland ==

: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. This pair of nominations is over one empty category and a category with one member. With no strong consensus to keep, this can also be deleted under OC small. If anyone can find more articles to populate a better defined category in this area, they can do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Historical nations of Poland}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded and redundant category. Azar66 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Query – why is it unneeded and to what is it redundant? The nom needs to give a better rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

: 1. I don't see the difference between :Category:Historical nations of Poland and :Category:Historical nations in Poland = redundant.

: 2. I don't understand, what are all the "historical nations in/of Poland" at all? I guess, every possible tribe from :Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe or/and ethnic group from :Category:Ethnic groups in Poland? -- Azar66 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

::* I would certainly agree that at most one of :Category:Historical nations of Poland and :Category:Historical nations in Poland should be kept. As for 2, this looks like a valid rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

:The term "Tribes of Poland" can only describe the tribes of West Slavs that lived from around the mid-7th century to the creation of first Polish state by the Piast dynasty in the territories that became Polish.

:Is such a category helpful? Are the now available categories: :Category:West Slavic tribes, :Category:Lechites, :Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe, :Category:Ethnic groups in Poland, :Category:West Slavic history, not enough? -- Azar66 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Historical nations in Poland ==

: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. This pair of nominations is over one empty category and a category with one member. With no strong consensus to keep, this can also be deleted under OC small. If anyone can find more articles to populate a better defined category in this area, they can do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Historical nations in Poland}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded and redundant category. Azar66 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Query – why is it unneeded and to what is it redundant? The nom needs to give a better rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

: See nomination: "Category:Historical nations of Poland" -- Azar66 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Scheduled sporting events ==

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Scheduled sporting events to :Category:Scheduled sports events

:Nominator's rationale: To pass to the following two categories: :Category:Current sports events and :Category:Current sports seasons. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:45, 23 December 2010 (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.

== Category:America's Cup venues ==

: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: As the category is currently empty, there is nothing to listify. Therefore, it is a delete.. Courcelles 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

:{{Lc|America's Cup venues}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of cities. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Venues by event, where it states that "there is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there". These are already mentioned in the article text and in table form at America's Cup. It's certainly not defining for places like Auckland, San Diego, and Valencia, Spain. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

:*Possibly, but I think the list is not long enough to warrant spinning out of America's_Cup. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • A clear case for listifying. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have notified the category creator [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABoatman&action=historysubmit&diff=404434692&oldid=397922065 here]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I was the category creator and confess to not thinking this through! I fully support a Listify approach which will enable America's Cup venue specifics such as courses etc to be properly described. The main article should be focussed on the challenges, results and changes to the cup format I would prefer a separate article America's Cup host cities and venues rather than List of America's Cup host cities and venues but I will fully support the majority decision on this. Boatman (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

::*Thanks for coming to comment. To be honest I think people were just suggesting the article name starts "List of" because we were talking about a very basic listification. Once some more content gets fleshed out, that's a rubbish title (I think "list of" is worth avoiding unless necessary for clarification) so I think you should feel free to go ahead at America's Cup host cities and venues. TheGrappler (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Ukrainian soccer clubs outside of Ukraine ==

: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:Ukrainian association football clubs outside Ukraine. Courcelles 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming :Category:Ukrainian soccer clubs outside of Ukraine to :Category:Ukrainian association football clubs outside of Ukraine

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Association football" is the common general term used on EN Wikipedia. Darwinek (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

:* Where I come from, 'outside' is an alternative to 'outside of'. How is a team in Toronto part of 'Football in Ukraine'? Occuli (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Islands in the West Indies ==

: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. Courcelles 05:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

:{{Lc|Islands in the West Indies}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains only :Category:Caribbean islands, which covers this antiquated concept.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Naxos ==

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Naxos to :Category:Naxos (island)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Naxos (island). :Naxos is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep the other cities have been just ruins for over 2000 years. There is no need for a seperate cat between the island and the city on it. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There are enough other potential meanings that it would seem to me to be foolish to make this a "primary meaning"-type category when the article hasn't taken that approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

:::There are articles on the island and the main city. The category can and should cover the lot. If you set up an island category you might want a city one in addition. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

::::The central problem is that there is bound to be confusion with Naxos (Sicily) or Naxos (Crete). If the city Naxos (city) is on the island, doesn't an island category encompass articles about the city that is on the island? That's how other island categories seem to be set up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::No there absolutely isn't! The Sicilian one was abandoned for a better site in 358 BC, and hasn't even left any proper ruins, and it is unclear is the Cretan one ever actually existed. Both are as obscure as can be, whereas the island is a major tourist destination. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps I'm too insignificant to avoid a finding of "absolutely" no chance of confusion, but I'm a reasonably well-read person, and I had heard of the Sicilian one in my line of work but was unaware of the island of the same name (except in the mythic sense), so I at least have anecdotal evidence that it's possible. (Admittedly, I have little interest in reading about or visiting Aegean islands and would not choose to pursue material about that topic.) In any case, that seems to be a debate more suitable to fixing the name of the article, not the category.

::::::But with categories, don't we tend to default to disambiguation if there is a possible problem, especially if the category name is different from and more ambiguous than the article name, which this one is? These questions aren't being addressed directly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom. The category name should match the article name, with an extra disambiguator if necessary. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom and per Occuli; the category name should match the article name, with an extra disambiguator if necessary. AFAICS, if there is a primary usage for "Naxos" there is a case to be made for Naxos Records, but for now the situation is that there is no primary usage. If anyone disagrees with that, please start with a WP:RM request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename What BrowhHairedGirl said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrappler (talk • contribs)
  • Wrong Forum The disagreement here is with the article name. Whatever the article name ends up being, the cat name should follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • :There are plenty of precedents for applying a disambiguator to an ambiguous category name, even if the head article is currentky the primary topic. See for example the city of Birmingham and :Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • :: Is that example desirable that one distinguishes between Alabama (among others) while the other doesn't? Honest question. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • :::The consensus of lengthy discussions is that it is desirable, because ambiguity raises difft issues in difft namespaces. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • :How can this possibly be the wrong forum? As nominator, I have zero issues with the name of the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ::It appears I was mistaken. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • :::Oh, sorry. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (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.

==== Native American tribes of South Carolina ====

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Native American tribes of South Carolina to :Category:Native American tribes in South Carolina

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Reason: there are 48 US states with a Native Tribes category, 47 are “in” and only South Carolina is “of”; see :Category:Native American tribes by state Hugo999 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Rename as per nom. Pointless inconsistency. TheGrappler (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • rename nominator's analysis of current names is correct. No obvious reason for this inconsistency to remain Hmains (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2010 (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.

== Dinghies by designer ==

: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:Boats designed by Ian Proctor and :Category:Boats designed by Jack Holt. I've moved both categories out of :Category:Dinghies and into a new :Category:Boats by designer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Ian Proctor designs to :Category:Dinghies designed by Ian Proctor or other (nom adjusted in comments below)

:Propose renaming :Category:Jack Holt Designs to :Category:Dinghies designed by Jack Holt or other (nom adjusted in comments below)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are categories for dinghies by designer, so I think "dinghies" needs to appear somewhere in the category name. ({{cat|Ian Proctor dinghies}} and {{cat|Jack Holt dinghies}} are other options; this would mirror the naming pattern of {{cat|Buildings and structures by architect}}.) I am fine with either format. (These people did design non-dinghy things, but the parent category is {{cat|Dinghies}}, so I suppose it should be limited to dinghies they designed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Rename Either option is fine but I think the original options in the nom are clearer. The problem with "Ian Proctor dinghies" is that it doesn't make it clear whether Ian Proctor is a designer, a style named after a designer, the person/company who physically made the dinghies... lets keep it nice and clear. TheGrappler (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename per TheGrappler. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ian Proctor designed other types of boat in addition to dinghies - hence the word dinghy should not appear in the cat name. The two categories should be :Category:Boats designed by Ian Proctor and :Category:Boats designed by Jack Holt. This format can also be used for all other designers of dinghy/keelboat/yacht/catamaran/trimaran etc etc. Boatman (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's what I mentioned above, but then why were the categories placed as subcategories of {{Cat|Dinghies}}? Should they be subcategories of {{Cat|Boats}}? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (nom). I think we should adopt Boatman's suggestion to broaden these, since upon investigation I've found that some non-dinghy boats have been added to the categories. Rename these to :Category:Boats designed by Ian Proctor and :Category:Boats designed by Jack Holt and change the parent categories from {{cat|Dinghies}} to {{cat|Boats}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Yachts by name ==

: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 as nominated. Courcelles 05:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming :Category:Yachts by name to :Category:Individual yachts

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of this category is not quite right; it is a little bit nonsensical, or at least somewhat redundant. Earlier this year there was discussion of the problematic nature of this category name in a discussion that resulted in the renaming of {{cat|Sailboat names}} to {{cat|Individual sailing vessels}}. This category was never followed up on, but I suggest that it should be renamed in a similar fashion, since what it contains are articles about individual yachts as opposed to classes of yachts and the other things in {{cat|Yachts}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom to better reflect the actual purpose of the category, which is articles on yachts rather than on their names. Also, the current name wouldn't work for multiple yachts of the same name, such as the series of twenty-something craft named Yeoman by their owner [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-sir-owen-aisher-1508246.html Owen Aisher]. His son(?) David has continued the tradition, and is now up to [http://gallery.rorc.org/main.php?g2_view=keyalbum.KeywordAlbum&g2_keyword=David+Aisher's+Yeoman+XXXII&g2_itemId=1965 Yeoman XXXII]. We do not yet appear to have any articles of any of those 32 craft, but given the number of prizes they have collected I think it's very likely that at least a few of the 32 would pass WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename What BrownHairedGirl said. TheGrappler (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • comment How is the content of this category supposed to differ from the category :Category:Yachts? Looking around various categories in the boat/ship tree, it seems that most just have a plural name of the boat/ship in which the individual vessels are included. :Category:Individual sailing vessels may be the exception, not the rule. Of course, :Category:Yachts would need additional subcats such as :Category:Types of yachts to rid itself directly of articles other than those of individual yachts. Alternatively, the entire boat and ship category branches need to be re-examined and a single pattern established and created for all of them regarding individual boats/ships. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think there is a difference, meaning that this could just as well be merged to {{cat|Yachts}}, or if it is kept, many of the articles in {{cat|Yachts}} still need to be moved to this category. I'm not really convinced it's necessary, but as long as it exists, I thought the name should at least be fixed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • merge to :Category: Yachts as this is the standard way to handle named vessels Hmains (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename, but don't merge to Yachts. The topic is broad enough to support both an overall descriptive category, and a "... by name" category. Any mis-categorization is an issue for the articles, not a reason to delete the category.

: It's also against policy to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bluebird_of_Chelsea&action=historysubmit&diff=405374570&oldid=405239988 depopulate] categories whilst they're still under discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (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.

== Category:Companies that have entered administration ==

: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. Courcelles 05:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies that have entered administration to :Category:Companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is defined as "companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom". The category needs to add "in the United Kingdom" since companies can enter administration under the laws of other countries; eg, Australia. The parent categories are {{cat|Insolvency law of the United Kingdom}} and {{cat|Defunct companies of the United Kingdom}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Rename the headnote restricts this category to the United Kingdom so the name should follow. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename as per nom. TheGrappler (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename as nom, but re-create present form as a parent. This should not be a category of defunct company, as the purpose of adminstration is to save the business, not close it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • comment no need to rename; just create the subcat named :Category:Companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom, move the current current articles into it and adjust this category's purpose slightly. Doing that would be good. Hmains (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that is necessary currently, since we don't currently categorize corporations from any other jurisdiction that have entered into administration. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Hundred Percent Free ==

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Hundred Percent Free}}

:{{Lc|Hundred Percent Free songs}} (empty category added to nomination at 02:52, 23 DEC 2010 UTC)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded eponymous category. No subcategories for songs or albums; apparently there are not even other articles to include—a template has been created but it is Hundred Percent redlinked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Protest at the nom's gross misrepresentation of the template - it contains an endangered bluelink to this category. Otto's argument about Hundred Percent Free being a navigational hub rendering all else redundant is valid in this case as no navigation is possible. ('What links here' reveals :Category:Hundred Percent Free songs - the template has missed a trick, indeed Fifty Percent of the tricks.) Yes, delete. Occuli (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Gee, I'm not sure how I missed that songs category. That empty songs category. ... I've added it to this nomination since it's empty and I can't find anything to go in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There was, briefly, [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:drA3OdHhh0wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hundred_Percent_Free_songs+Category:Hundred+Percent+Free+songs&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk a song] until it was deleted (deservedly IMO). Occuli (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom and per Occuli. Two categories for one article and a useless template? Pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete this is not about 100% free (libre or gratis) material. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Both If noteworthy articles are created to populate them, they can be recreated. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2010 (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.

== Category:Change albums ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Change albums to :Category:Change (band) songs :Category:Change (band) albums

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Change (band). :Change is ambiguous and there are a number of albums and songs called "Change" that could result in confusion relating this category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2010 (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.