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.
That was my first reaction, too, except that the parent article states in the lead: "As a musical genre, post-rock is arguably too vague to be useful." If that's so, it gets harder to make the argument that this can be a defining and non-arbitrary grouping. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 2 June 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Current name is unclear, imo, as "relinquishing" could be a verb or adjective. If understood as a gerund (verb), category could be misunderstood as being about children relinquishing parents, rather than the other way around, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why is this a category we would want to keep? It hardly seems defining for those included—more like an interesting personal factoid. I would therefore tentatively lean towards delete. Good Ol’factory(talk)20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the category is inappropriate because it is unseemly and thus implicates the biography of a living-person? That would seem overtly puritanical, if not bordering on censorship.Tobit2 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is- giving away a child has a permanent impact on a person's outlook on life, psychology, personal identity, and often, life choices. Without doubt it is more defining than whether a person is a Ethical Culture Fieldston School alumni or whether someone has had the unfortunate experience of Deaths by firearm in Florida; in fact, it may be the defining characteristic of the person in question. The name itself "Relinquishing parents" seems more clear than the alternative proposed.Tobit2 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your opinion is the exact opposite, then giving away a child, in your view, would have no impact on a parent. That would seem inhumane, which is, without doubt, a defining psychological characteristic. Is that what you meant?Tobit2 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. Although I don't have any strong personal feelings about it one way or the other, it seems to be a logical part of the cat structure round adoption and adoptees (which presumably isn't being challenged?) to keep this one for parents who have given their children up for adoption. And giving a child away probably is as "defining" as being adopted, although probably often not easy to document. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:12, 12 June 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. OCAT, ambiguous and subjective inclusion criteria. To quote from the introduction, These runways are notable for unusual physical features such as short length, steep slope, airplane proximity to unsecured people, or crossing automobile traffic. This is so overly broad and ambiguous that I can include a bunch of airports here. What makes an airport runway short? What is short for a 747 is not short for a Cessna 172. What exactly is an unsecured person? It is is what I think it is, then you need to add a bunch of airports. This might be useful as a list that explains what the unique characteristic is, but I don't thinks a listify is appropriate since the list article would be time consuming and require research to properly create. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fix criteria and rename The improved criteria suggested by LeadSongDog seems like a good enough start for me to feel this category can be kept. However, I would propose renaming it to Category:Airports with unusual runways since the articles in the category are about the airports, and not the runways themselves. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too subjective, no ref to define what is included or excluded and therefore serves no real purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fix criteria - It just needs some work to clarify the criteria, but it is a useful construct. I had no idea this cat existed, but can think of several articles that I have worked on that should be in it. LeadSongDogcome howl!13:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine criteria Remarkably short runways, "one-way" runways, runways crossing roads etc. are notable and should have a category. "Unsecured" is far too broad though. Refinement per LSD's comment would be a good idea. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed15:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Curiously enough, inclusion can be sourced. Here are "18 stangest" in English [1]. Here are "10 scariest" in Russian [2]. This is, certainly, entertainment for housewives but its mainstream press and could be taked for RS. BTW, link#2 differs from the current category in just one entry (the usual suspects are always the same). East of Borschov (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with possible rename. This category does provide a genuine type of information. the only question is making it more encyclopedic, and making it more factual and less subjective in nature and scope. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The attempts to salvage this are commendable, but it looks to me like this should be a list, not a category. The term "unusual" is too subjective to be kept, and the intricate setting of parameters for inclusion is pretty arbitrary. It might make a passable list, though. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahunt. What is unusual in one country is commonplace elsewhere - almost every airport in Papua New Guinea would qualify as 'unusual' under the vague criteria expressed, hence they are not actually unusual. Do we include runways with an ILS in only one direction? Do we include runways that have different surfaces along their lengths? Do we include runways with windsocks that point to each other on windy days? YSSYguy (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not the runways that are unusual necessarily, more the final approach to them (I did Kai Tak, Hong Kong once and lived!). What classes as an unusual runway? Too vague in scope at the moment unfortunately. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:38, 17 June 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 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.
Keep Given the strong and defining difference between a head coach and other coaches, we should be categorizing in this manner. These categories may be small now but there is every reason to expect growth. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Alansohn's comments. There should be a developed separate tree for head coaches as their role is different from that of assistants. Mayumashu (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. At a college level assistant coaches are unlikely to be notable as coaches. Merely introduces an additional level of categorization. If these categories grow such that they are filled with a mix of head and non-head coaches then a split in the future might be useful. Tassedethe (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per Tassedethe. This seems premature at this stage, though Tassedethe is right that it's unlikely people are notable as college basketball assistant coaches. It's far more likely they were notable as players or later became notable as head coaches. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:30, 24 June 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:American expatriate soul musicians in the United Kingdom
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The current explanation of this cat is: "A category for entries on specific individual robots who do not fit into any of the specific categories which are for individual robots by specific type or function." Isn't that what the category category:robots is for? (rhetorical question) As such, I propose this should be up-merged. Wizard191 (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi. Sorry, no (to answer your question); as the originator of this category, the category "Robots" seemed mostly to have been a place for general articles which relate to the general topic of robots, or else also for general types of robots; espcially since it is a main category for a major topic. previously, there had been no category which was for specific individual robots which did not fit into other categories for specific robots.
Merge per nom. This looks like a "remainders" category or a "not otherwise specified" type category. The contents of such categories are always contained in the general parent category, not in a specialized "general" or "other" category. Good Ol’factory(talk)20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok. point taken. I moved a bunch of articles. just stating that here in the interests of full disclosure, and also in candor with one's fellow editors. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:27, 15 June 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These names are generally confusing as they stand now. If we start piling three and sometimes four adjectives on top of one another ("Canadian Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops"—what?), many users will be unsure what exactly is being referred to. These proposals are meant to clarify and are patterned after some of those names selected for Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - "Membership" is this type of church is specific status that implies paying tithes and being in good "moral" standing in the community. A better word might be "adherent". "From Canada" is awkward but perhaps doable. If this goes ahead I prefer the bracketed proposal for distinguishing bishops. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Do we need a subcategory for images? How many of those images can not be moved to commons? How many of them are not free probably need to be removed from the category? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any images, including those in the following nominations to Category:Sailing images. Since these are likely already linked in the appropriate articles, there is little need to have all of the proposed small categories. Over time, all of the free images should be moved to commons. Some of the non free images can be placed in the appropriate logo categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 11 June 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Do we need a subcategory for images? How many of those images can not be moved to commons? How many of them are not free probably need to be removed from the category? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. If you disable image display then you disable it for all of the images including those that could be displayed. Disabling the image display is an excellent idea if you are only including images that are not free. As a general solution it is worth avoiding. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only images that should reside on Wikipedia instead of Commons are those that are not free or otherwise require an FUR, unless they need protection for some reason or are user images for userspace, then that shouldn't be a problem. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which can include logos which is a different category tree. Turning off image display should only be considered when the category would never have any images that can not be displayed in the category. If these are gathered into one category it would make cleanup easier since you would see what you are dealing with. Right now you would need to look across multiple categories to figure this out. I'll also note that the proposed subcategories are novel given the absence of Category:Sailing images or Category:Images of sailing. Why is this small subset so unique? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 17 June 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
REverse merge might be better, but no strong views. I am not commenting on the otehr Olympic sailing nominations, but they look OK to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 18 June 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Oppose Winemaker and vintner are not the same thing. A vintner trades in wine, and therefore there have for example been a lot of British vintners. Unfortunately, non-professional American English usage has mixed up the term, and used "vintner" for winemakers. Thus, I'm sure that the category has been misapplied to many winemakers and its use needs for some articles to be revised, but they should not be merged. On another note, WP:WINE has long since identified a need to do an overhaul of the entire complex "people-related" wine categories, but we unfortunately have never gotten around to it, and changes in isolation wouldn't be that helpful. Tomas e (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It sounds as if Vintner needs to be converted to a sustantive article dealing with the wine trade. with a preliminary statement as to its use for winemakers. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Vintner redirects to winemaker only because it's the closest available subject, and no article currently exists about vintners. They aren't synonymous, as Tomas e points out. Just because one title redirects to another isn't a compelling reason to merge categories of the same title. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 18 June 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 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.
Oppose article titles are Hollywood and Hollywood, Florida respectively, and there appears to be no evidence that there is any confusion between the two, let alone enough to justify having the category title conflict with the title of the article. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories need that extra layer of clarity - where article page titles can be helpful they should be the basis for category page naming Mayumashu (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – there is ample recent precedent for using the 'place, state' (or similar) format for category names in the US, regardless of the article name, in deference to clarity. (I see that Hollywood, Florida, a city, is actually bigger than Hollywood, a mere district - those of us not in the US are aware of Hollywood as a purveyor of movies, rather than a place.) Occuli (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but createCategory:People from Hollywood, Florida and purge the present category of those who should be in the Florida one (by recategorising them). Place a capnote on the category page for the LA category pointing to the new one. If Hollywood Florida has 140,000 people, a few must be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:04, 18 June 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 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.
Delete, there are good reasons why we deleted the Category:Terrorists, and 'domestic' is not an improvement. In general, its good to avoid cats like 'domestic' and 'foreign' as Wikipedia itself is an international encyclopedia. --Soman (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you in general, I think the intent here was to distinguish between terrorism in the US committed by citizens and terrorism in the US committed by foreigners. I see the real problem with the category as being its lack of an objective criteria. Savidan23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per discussion during CfD of cat:terrorists and misleading name/scope; this could be terrorists from the US, terrorists living in the US, and "Domestic" is not appropriate in an international project (Wikipedia). This has some serious BLP implications and is just generally not needed.--Terrillja talk18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As presently constituted the category is inappropriate. However, a category or categories based on more objective indica ("Americans convicted of terrorism", etc.) would be acceptable. Savidan23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is a legitimate one in principle. A merge to terrorism would be inapproproate since this is about people not evetns or concepts. I guess the objective is to identify persons convicted of terrorism (or who died by their own actions) for events on US soil committed by US residents (or citizens). Unfortunately, I cannot suggest a better name. Perhaps the answer is to Keep and to definite its scope precisely in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't keep this one in anything close to its present form, and most of these people were neither charged with nor convicted of terrorism. Instead, its current contents depend largely on the subjective judgement of a few wikipedians. Savidan19:03, 19 June 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 20#Ukrainian Greek Catholics. — ξxplicit 04:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)