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.
Speedy delete all, per G5. The creator is a known disruptive troll and sockpuppet who has a habit of moving other users' draft into mainspace and taking credit for their creation. -- Ϫ19:57, 19 March 2011 (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 result of the discussion was:rename all. There is unanimous support for renaming these categories, and I am closing the discussion early (after 6 days rather than the usual 7) per WP:IAR because this is a current event, and accurate category naming will assist the editors who are building wikipedia's coverage of this topic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created the parent category, with a name matching the main earthquake article. The main article has now been moved, and IMHO the category associated with it should follow. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do it already It's been 48 hours, where's the problem? Is it anything to do with the fact that the list's own page is suggesting it be renamed from its present name to - its present name? Morag Kerr (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2011 (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: Useless category: Greece has opted out of a nuclear energy programme, so this category will not be populated except by the one stub overview article. Constantine ✍ 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the articles won't be deleted, certainly. But a category with one or two articles, which is not likely to grow and which has no real relevance to the real world (as there is essentially no "Nuclear energy in Greece" as such) is rather redundant. These could just as easily be categorized at Category:Energy in Greece. Constantine ✍ 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category creator has been building out other subcategories of Category:Nuclear power by country aggressively. Many are thin on content. On the other hand, who can tell any more which branches are determined to be part of a "system," allowing even a single stub to be placed in its own category.- choster (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Comment While the only thing currently in the parent category is this sub-category, I do agree that it is conceptually more durable whether or not Greeced pursues nuclear energy.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Upmerge: This is a rare example of where I'll support a cat with less than 5 articles since I don't think a European category would work. But I do not support two categories for 2 articles. Up merge this one to Category:Nuclear technology in Greece until such time as the article count can justify 2 categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These eponymous categories are unnecessary as they each have only one or two subcategories and the eponymous article itself (and sometimes a discography page). The categories for Foo Records artists and Foo Records albums will already have a link to the main article using {{cat main}} or {{cat more}}. Links, if wanted, from either of these categories to the other can be obtained by adding {{category see also}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First: It's already established practice to have a category for a record label and subcats for albums, eps, etc... See Category:Tommy Boy Records, Category:Creation Records (there are many more under each country Category:Independent record labels). Second the categories are needed to link Foo Records artists and Foo Records albums to the Canadian music tree. Without these categories, the artists and album categories do not exist for the Canadian music project. Third, I wasn't actually done adding items to the categories (I didn't create them all). Argolin (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an established practice when only a small percentage of the overall number of articles within Category:Independent record labels have eponymous categories. At that, either they have additional articles/subcategories to warrant this type of categorization or they have the same issues as the ones nominated here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I guess you are stating that it not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme? I surprised it has not been discussed before.
Delete. I'm having difficulty seeing the point to a lot of these, if not all of them. As the nominator says, if there is more than one subcategory or article, they can easily be linked through non-category means. I don't think this is an established scheme whereby every record label needs to have an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep but I strongly oppose keeping those which we consider big and deleting those which we consider small. For one thing, the cutoff will be pretty arbitrary and the size of such categories is typically not a reflection of their inherent maximum size but rather a function of whether or not someone has taken the time to populate them. Furthermore, a coherent category tree structure is important for readers. Pichpich (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm all for salvaging workable cats that just need a little TLC. The two record labels that I checked what links to them (Alien8 & Mint) seemed to be limited to records and albums so I'm not so sure there are articles waiting in the wings. But maybe I lack the expertise to identify them?RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cats will get a discography article (when I get around to it). There were only two for these record labels that I found. Argolin (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2011 (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. On the surface, this seems like a sensible category. However in actual usage, I'm not convinced that it is. For example, why is Thomas Fitch (politician) included? Was his presence in the area between 'c. 1827 - 1911', as stated in the category, defining. Is 'c. 1827 - 1911' subjective? One would think that the Arizona Territorial Legislature was part of the old west but it is not categorized as such. So is this a maintenance issue and we need a cleanup or is the category itself a problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category includes articles that are in no way limited to the Old West. For instance, the article on Abilene, Kansas focuses on the city in the present day, and the historical significance of Vasquez Rocks is related to prehistoric times, not the era of the American Old West. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This has a main article, many subcats, over a hundred articles, and is a appropriate sub-category to the categories in which it exists. Categories are to help readers navigate to articles. This category serves that purpose. If editors want to improve the category contents, then do so. Hmains (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I agree that there is some cleanup needed to this category tree I think the categories themselves are useful. Perhaps asking WikiProject American Old West to take a look at them would be helpful. Not sure how active that project is though. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (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. I propose changing the nominated categories from the "FOOian senators" format. There are a number of reasons that this should be done:
Consistency among categories for legislators. For categories that categorize members of legislative bodies, the usual format is "Members of LEGISLATIVE-BODY", where "LEGISLATIVE-BODY" is the name of the WP article about the body. The only type of category where this pattern is not overwhelmingly adhered to is if the legislative body contains the word "Senate" in it. I don't think there is any good reason to use one format consistently but then change to a "FOOian senators" format just because the body is called a Senate. In each case above, the proposed category name has incorporated the WP article name of the Senate in question.
Clarity of meaning. Ultimately, these are categories for a particular governmental position: they are not nationality/occupation categories. While it is true that most Members of the Senate of FOO will be of FOOian nationality, that will not invariably be the case, because in some countries a person may be a member of the Senate of that country even without citizenship. France and its former colonies presents a particularly vexing problem if the "FOOian senators" format is used. Prior to their independence, French colonies in Africa sent representatives to the Senate of France. So it may be confusing to classify a person from Senegal who served in the Senate of France as a "French Senator". Couldn't he also be classified as a "Senegalese senator", if one interprets the latter as being a nationality category? If we call the categories "Members of the Senate of France" and "Members of the Senate of Senegal", where to put certain legislators becomes far more obvious.
Consistency among categories for senators. There are already a number of categories for senators that have adopted the proposed approach, including categories for legislators who have been members of the Senates of Colombia, Haiti, Jamaica, Liberia, South Africa, Spain, the Netherlands, Bermuda, and Trinidad and Tobago. (I realise that this isn't determinative of anything, but I include the point here to reassure that this will be promoting some consistency and not the reverse.)
One final point is to note that I have not included Category:United States Senators within this nomination. I think that the U.S. case is somewhat different, because the category is named after a formal title ("United States Senator") rather than a nationality/occupation combination ("American senators"). I think the U.S. case should be left to a separate discussion if anyone wants to suggest changing it. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator, for consistency with other categories of legislators, and to ensure that the membership categories are explicitly include the name of the legislature. This is yet another example of how adjectives make for poor category names, by creating ambiguity. We should go much further in removing adjectives from category names. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 23 March 2011 (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: There is, at this time, insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for this city. The category contains only three articles—of which one is the main article and a second is about a sanctuary located near, not in, Garissa. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk)00:23, 16 March 2011 (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: There appears, at this time, to be insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for this provincial capital of c. 50,000 people. Three of the four articles in the category already are in Category:Embu District, so merging will bring the number of articles in the district category to just six.
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.
