Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 25

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < June 24

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | June 26 >

{{PAGENAME}}

= June 25 =

== Category:Irisbus ==

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

:The result of the discussion was: upmerge to :Category:Iveco vehicles and :Category:Iveco as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Irisbus}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (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:Abstraction ==

: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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Abstraction}}

:Nominator's rationale: Vague. Over-categorization. Pointless Brad7777 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (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:Interdisciplinary fields ==

: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 for now. The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Interdisciplinary fields}}

:Nominator's rationale: Not notable. Over-categorization. Brad7777 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I see no use for this. I would say basically every field would fit this tag except the most elementary of fields. Brad7777 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Not over overcategorization. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The category name is problematic given that the main article is Interdisciplinarity which states Interdisciplinarity involves the combining of two or more academic disciplines into one activity, so are these activities separately written about and do we have articles on those? Right now it appears that what is included are the disciplines that are combined. Can't all disciplines be combined rendering the current contents invalid since the criteria is no longer defining as everything should be a member? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe so. Brad7777 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If NN, it is surprising that it should be so well populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Almost every discipline could go into this category, that's why it is so well populated. Brad7777 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the discussion that follows. Allow recreation at a later date if only those fields which are combined have an article and are named uniquely. Recreation would also require a category name and introduction that makes the intent of the category clear. In the meantime, a list should/could be created to address these combinations which could negate the need for a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete how do either anthropology or history belong in this category? This is throwing together a lot of fields of study in many cases for reasons that are not clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, but allow recreation per Vegaswikian. This could be a very valid category if appropriately populated. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:31, 3 July 2012 (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:Dangerous Road for Pedestrians ==

: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 Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Dangerous Road for Pedestrians}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete hopelessly subjective and unlikely to be defining since roads are not designed to be safe for pedestrians. Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Would all the interstates count? Delete. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, all roads are dangerous for pedestrians with the degree of danger varying by location. If kept, rename to :Category:Dangerous roads for pedestrians. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. Steam5 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no real clear criteria for inclusion. For one thing, is it meant to be for roads where pedestrians often exist, or should we include every road that a pedestrian trying to cross is in major risk?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This is a hopelessly POV category. There can be no clear criterion as to which roads should (and should not) appear. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete for now - with respect, before passing such judgements it would be wise to refer back to the WP projects which might have an informed opinion. E.g. the Euro NCAP equivalents for roads might enable non-subjectivity. However, in this instance, when you look at the two roads in this category you will see there is no reference to pedestrian safety within the articles. Ephebi (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2012 (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:Luther Rice Seminary 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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Luther Rice Seminary alumni to :Category:Luther Rice University alumni

:Nominator's rationale: Merge we have a single main article under the title Luther Rice University (to which Luther Rice Seminary redirects) so I propose keeping all alumni in a single category. Pichpich (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge Brad7777 (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge as best I can tell this is all one unified organization. The seminary is not a distinct unit which we normally require to sub-categorize alumni seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge -- Whatever the relationship of the two, I do not think we need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (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:Albums produced by Hangmen 3 ==

: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 Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Albums produced by Hangmen 3}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete Per precedent, we usually require multiple solo production credits to create such a category. In this case, Hangmen 3 (aka Benzino) only has partial producer credits on his own albums. Pichpich (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2012 (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:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes ==

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

:The result of the discussion was: upmerge to :Category:Chemical nomenclature. The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes to :Category:Affixes used in Chemistry

:Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar Brad7777 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I think :Category:Chemistry affixes would be better. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment this terminology ("affix") is unknown [https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&prmdo=1&biw=1120&bih=735&q=%2B%28chemistry+OR+chemical+OR+organic%29+%2Baffix&oq=%2B%28chemistry+OR+chemical+OR+organic%29+%2Baffix&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...9503.20444.0.20737.25.25.0.0.0.5.122.2305.20j5.25.0...0.0.LSN6vGYlGWY] , while "prefix" and "suffix" are used [https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&prmdo=1&biw=1120&bih=735&q=%2B%28chemistry+OR+chemical+OR+organic%29+%2B%28prefix+OR+suffix%29&oq=%2B%28chemistry+OR+chemical+OR+organic%29+%2B%28prefix+OR+suffix%29&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...23030.25494.0.25707.12.12.0.0.0.0.93.1057.12.12.0...0.0.QdgCDkblcrU] -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (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:Teachable units for language instruction ==

: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 Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Teachable units for language instruction}}

:Nominator's rationale: Only contains 4 articles. Seems to have been unused since 2009, and I'm not very clear as to if it will grow as there is no eponymous article. Brad7777 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2012 (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:Bird terminology ==

: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. The Bushranger One ping only 17:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Bird terminology to :Category:Ornithological terminology

:Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Is the new name supposed to imply terms from ornithology (in which case, it should be a subcategory called :Category:Ornithology terminology), or is it supposed to retain the broad scope of the current name? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

:Comment Retain the broad scope. My problem is only one of grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2012 (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:Ecology terminology ==

: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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Ecology terminology to :Category:Ecological terminology

:Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar Brad7777 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep The category is for terminology used in ecology, not for terminology which is ecological.- choster (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Question What's the difference? Brad7777 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Choster. Terminology used in ecology, the field, is a much more limited scope, than terminology used in relation to anything ecological. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Surely, anything related to something ecological, like for example; something related to an ecosystem - would be studied in ecology, relative to the ecosystem. Would this not then give that term related to the ecosystem an ecological flavour? Because I thought "ecological term" referred to a term from an ecological perspective. Brad7777 (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) And any term from an ecological perspective is worthy to be used in ecology. Brad7777 (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply no, ecology is a science, with specific terminology. However, ecological activism is not a science, and has its own terminology. There are other subjects related to ecology which can be covered by "ecological" terminology, but which is not covered by "ecology" terminology. I'd rather think we should not expand the scope of this category to do that. A supercategory under your proposed name can be used for such a thing, without needing to expand the current scope. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply Ecology's own terminology is of an ecological nature. I get what you mean about other disciplines having the term "ecological" in them, but take Ecological economics; the terminology it uses is a mixture of economical terms and ecological terms. More specifically, the ecological terms are given an additional economic definition, also making them economical terms. Making :Category:Ecological terminology (or "ecological terms"?) a parent category of :Category:Ecology terminology is just creating depth for no reason. Brad7777 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2012 (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:Biology prefixes and suffixes ==

: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: Image:Symbol move vote.svg Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Biology prefixes and suffixes to :Category:Affixes used in Biology

:Nominator's rationale: Improvement of grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2012 (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:Biology terminology ==

: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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Biology terminology to :Category:Biological terminology

:Nominator's rationale: An improvement to the grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose the first is terminology used in biology, the field, the second is terminology used in relation with anything biological. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Which I believe are exactly the same thing. Could you give an example so I can understand why you say they are different? Brad7777 (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply a category for the field of biology, should not include terms for the marketing of probiotics, terms from alternative medicine, or industrial products from biological sources, such a biofuels and bioplastics. Or marketing terms for shampoos, which biorevive your hair. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply They would also not be included "biological terminology". You have named marketing terms, medicinal terms and biochemicals. Brad7777 (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Google Hits [https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22biology+terminology%22&oq=%22biology+terminology%22&gs_l=hp.3..0l3j0i30.5332.29806.0.30641.30.25.1.3.4.1.1293.8062.0j16j2j1j0j2j3j1.25.0...0.0.eKvdRxb_yKc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1deb3a27a4d9b1ab&biw=1024&bih=497 "Biology terminology"], [https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22biology+terminology%22&oq=%22biology+terminology%22&gs_l=hp.3..0l3j0i30.5332.29806.0.30641.30.25.1.3.4.1.1293.8062.0j16j2j1j0j2j3j1.25.0...0.0.eKvdRxb_yKc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1deb3a27a4d9b1ab&biw=1024&bih=497 Biology terms], [https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22biology+terminology%22&oq=%22biology+terminology%22&gs_l=hp.3..0l3j0i30.5332.29806.0.30641.30.25.1.3.4.1.1293.8062.0j16j2j1j0j2j3j1.25.0...0.0.eKvdRxb_yKc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1deb3a27a4d9b1ab&biw=1024&bih=497 Biological terminology] and [https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22biological+terms%22&oq=%22biological+terms%22&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.31813.32699.10.33217.3.3.0.0.0.0.237.490.0j2j1.3.0...0.0.29b-t3Oqhp4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1deb3a27a4d9b1ab&biw=1024&bih=497 "Biological terms"]. "Biological terms" has significantly more hits. I propose a rename to :Category:Biological terms. Brad7777 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not a question of "common name" this is a question of the right term to describe what we have. What makes this a category is that it is terms used in the field known as biology. It is not terms that are in some way "biological". The current name describes what the terms are, terms used in the science, biology. I am not sure we can justify the goal term as a category name. The current name works at least, and I say, if it is not broke, don't fix it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The current name does not have an eponymous article called Biology terminology so there is no reason to name it as if it is a topic category. It is a set category, containing as you have said, terms used in the science, biology. These terms are biological terms, (they are defined by the logic of Biology.) I agree the terms are not "alive" but they are definitely biological terms. As it is a set category, by the naming conventions of WP:CAT the category name should be plural for example :Category:Biological terms. It is also the more common phrase according to google. Brad7777 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2012 (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:Compensation ==

: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. The Bushranger One ping only 17:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Compensation to :Category:Compensation methods

:Nominator's rationale: Compensation has too many other meanings. This category is about Compensation methods so it should be named as such. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:58, 25 June 2012 (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:108 holy temples of Vishnu ==

: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. The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:108 holy temples of Vishnu to :Category:Divya Desams

:Nominator's rationale: The 108 holy temples of Vishnu are known, collectively, as the Divya Desams. (Category creator not notified: inactive for 2 years) -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Note: If there is consensus to rename the category, I request that the task be left to me, so that I might be able to correct the sort keys for the articles while renaming the category (to avoid double-editing each article), as well as to determine why there are 111 articles in the category when there should be only 109: the head article and the 108 temples. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Ocean of milk is one of the 2 extras (Ocean of milk is an extra-terrestrial one. The situation is complicated by many of the 108 listed links being redirects, at least 3 being to dab pages.) Oculi (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Heheheh, good luck with that Black Falcon. Your mission if you choose to accept it is... Decide on a renaming nomenclature that is consistant, rename all the articles and see what you can do with the DABs. Been here, done that, not fun. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- This is the English WP, not the Hindi or Sanskrit one, so that category names should be in English. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename the article is Divya Desams so we should follow that lead in the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support to match the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to match the parent article. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:31, 30 June 2012 (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.

== Transportation in Canada ==

: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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Transportation --> Transport}}

{{collapse bottom}}

:Nominator's rationale: The established naming convention on the top level of the category tree is to use "Transport" instead of "Transportation". See: :Category:Transport in Canada, :Category:Transport in Canada by province or territory and :Category:Transport in Canada by city. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Rename all per nom. The head article and category for this category tree are Transport in Canada and :Category:Transport in Canada, respectively. There has been at least one discussion aimed at changing the head article to Transportation in Canada and the proposal failed to gain consensus. Except the nominated location-based categories, all other members of the tree already use 'transport' – e.g., :Category:Rail transport in Canada, :Category:Transport disasters in Canada. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and reverse speedy rename of head category. This was discussed last year, and closed as don't rename, it never should have gone through speedy rename. My hope, was that consensus was to judge each individually, as the local agency in each jurisdiction uses different terminology. All of these categories, and their parent categories, are way too many to be discussed in a mass nomination. 117Avenue (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

:*In the link you have given, the closure is: "rename all as nominated". Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

::* :Category:Transport in Canada resulted from a full cfd. Oculi (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

:::*Yes, that's the one I was thinking of, thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Rename all. Canada is an on-the-fence country on this score. Transportation and transport seem to be used about equally. In that case, we should default to the majority of the world's usage, which is transport.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename all to match :Category:Transport in Canada and :Transport in Canada. Oculi (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename all as Transport, not transportation, is the standard established by the top of the tree and per standard usage in a 'neutral' country, as per Mike and Oculi. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would say the standard established by the tree is the one used by most of the tree, in this case, it is "transportation". And I don't see what a "neutral" country has to do with Canada, since this deals solely with Canadian categories. The US is a "neutral" (ie. non-Canadian) country, it uses "transportation". (I have no opinion on which side is better, but I think the opinions provided should be based on Canadian English when determining which way these categories are named) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's "neutral" as in "uses 'transport' and 'transportation' roughly equally in Canadian English" based on the comments above. And just because the majority of the tree uses a certain standard doesn't mean it's the right standard. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:26, 27 June 2012 (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:City airports ==

: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 Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|City airports}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inclusion criteria is too subjective. What exactly determines 'close proximity'? Why restrict the target to only business travelers? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete vague marketting term. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete the fact that Detroit City Airport does not qualify because despite being in the city it is not in or in close proximity to Downtown Detroit (well, not by my definitions of close proximity, others may have different views) tells me this category is far too narrowly defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (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.