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: It's not generally considered standard on Wikipedia to use the category system to distinguish current from former occupants of the same office. Suggest delete — but even if this is felt to be a keeper, it still unequivocally needs a rename to American mayors. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (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:Rename. "Numerical integration" is frequently also used to refer to integrating differential equations, as described in Numerical ordinary differential equations. Users would thus expect a "Numerical integration" category to contain such algorithms as forward Euler, Stormer-Verlet, etc. "Numerical quadrature" is more precise, and moreover the vast majority of articles currently in this category have "quadrature" in their title. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like Numerical integration (quadrature), then? My only objection to "integration" is that the category is currently much more narrow than the name. TotientDragooned (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Numerical integration" is a more commonly used term for the topics in this category than "numerical quadrature". The category that contains articles about numerical solutions to differential equations is Category:Numerical differential equations. -- Gandalf61 09:07, 21 September 2008
Support rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), which says: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase" (I presume this holds for categories as well). I think that our Naming conventions imply that if there are two terms for a subject, one which is more common used and one which is more precise, then we should go with the more precise term. That's the situation here. The name "numerical integration" is ambiguous (for instance, MathSciNet gives 1399 works with "numerical integration" in the title, and 6 of the first 20 results are about the solution of differential equations) but it is more commonly used: MathSciNet has only 131 works with "numerical quadrature" in the title, which is likely less than the proportion of the 1399 works with "numerical integration" that is about evaluating integrals, but proves that the term "numerical quadrature" is in use. If people are really opposed to Category:Numerical quadrature, how about Category:Numerical evaluation of integrals? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2008 (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.
There are a number of reasons these categories should be deleted.
The parent category is just a combination of the three "characters from" specific video games categories below, and is just redundant.
There is only one real article in all of them combined.
All other items in them are redirects to the three different video game articles.
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.
General convention is to have the category match the name of the key article where possible, especially when there is even the slightest possibility of confusion. In this case, though it's not overly likely there'd be confusion, it's still possible; it's exactly analogous to the reason why we don't have a category called Category:Memphis. Grutness...wha?02:09, 18 September 2008 (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: Empty. Considering how obscure Five Percenters are (virtually by design), I find it hard to believe that this category is meaningful. If this was emptied for some reason without a CfD, then I withdraw this nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 16 September 2008 (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 - not a frequently-used term in the literature, and in any case most exoplanets only have lower limits on their masses (i.e. the true mass is greater than a certain number), which makes their membership in this category (defined as having a mass less than a certain number) insecure. Icalanise (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stars are measured in solar masses, but we don't categorize stars into things that mass less or more than One Sun. We measure things in kilograms, but we don't divide things into stuff that is less than 1 kg and more than 1 kg. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (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.
Comment from the Super-Earth article, the dividing line between a non-Super-Earth and a Super-Earth is not necessarily at 1 Earth mass, there is a variety of opinion on where that line is. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as my comment for sub-jupiter: it is not practical to classify exoplanets by mass, and this is not a term that is well defined. --mikeutalk22:11, 28 September 2008 (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:Merge, This is a non-defining characteristic for planets. These are all giant planets, and the dividing line at Jupiter is arbitrary. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support merge - the merger should be fine (Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a project dedicated to coming up with planetary classification schemes), but a couple of caveats: the term "super-Jupiter" has appeared in the literature, e.g. [2] though it is not a common term; also playing devil's advocate, we do not know if all planets in this mass range are in fact gas giants, though it is difficult to see under the context of current theoretical work how it could be otherwise. Icalanise (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stars are measured in solar masses, but we don't categorize stars into things that mass less or more than One Sun. We measure things in kilograms, but we don't divide things into stuff that is less than 1 kg and more than 1 kg. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge - i hate to repeat myself, but this one also: it is not practical to classify exoplanets by mass, and this is not a term that is well defined. --mikeutalk22:13, 28 September 2008 (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:Anglican Bishops in the Diocese of Worcester
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.
Rename per nom. However, I am not suer of the value of these suffragan categories. Nevertheless, they were presumably kept on a previous discussion. The alternative would be to keep the presetn name and include the diocesan bishop as well, butn that would ahve to be done for all the otehr English dioceses. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (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. Even if we accept the validity of the definition, I'm pretty sure that the name is a bad one for this idea. But then again, I don't accept the validity of the definition. Why is it arbitrarily limited back to the 1950s? Hell, the way my grandpa talks about it, he has a serious case of nostalgia for the 1930s' Great Depression. What makes the 1950s "modern" but not the 1940s? (Do Nazis have nostalgia for the 1940s, or at least the early 1940s?) The article decade nostalgia cranks it back to the 1890s. Could someone not have nostalgia for a decade that is prior to their birth? Can't I be nostalgic for the 1320s? (Ah, the peasant revolt in Flanders—those were the days!) Good Ol’factory(talk)03:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Decade nostalgia itself is in poor shape at present, consisting mostly of a pop culture history of the United States (a kind of "Wikipedia Loves the 80's", 70's, etc., via the wonders of OR selectivity and commentary) rather than a history of how "decade nostalgia" has manifested. Postdlf (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (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.
