Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 6

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. Kbdank71 19:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of following small populated categories:

• Category:Former students of St Kevin's College, Oamaru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Former students of St Patrick's College, Wellington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in favor of listifying. [email protected] (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – part of the vast
  talk) 00:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. The secondary school alumni categories really should all be listified. There are very few in the world that constitute a defining aspect of the students who attend there. A few are defining and most are not; however, if we tried to restrict categories to only those few that are defining, we would have endless fights as to which are and which are not. Therefore, from a practical standpoint we really either have to accept categories for all secondary schools or accept categories for none of them. I would be strongly in favour of none, because there are far more of these categories that are not defining than those that are. I'm afraid, though, that this approach is a losing battle, as a broad nomination would almost certainly fail due to the enthusiasm for these categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- we have vast numbers of alumni categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 16 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Livonia, Michigan. Kbdank71 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Companies based in Livonia, Michigan to Category:Companies based in Metro Detroit

Nominator's rationale: Only four entries,

WP:OC#SMALL, not likely to expand (note that the category creator also made a very inaccurate article listing companies "based" in Livonia). Better to upmerge since Livonia is in Metro Detroit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Rename & Expand: The existing cat is not viable and the list article should be deleted. But there are about another dozen articles related to Livonia with room for growth and no current city cat. I would favor changing this to Category:Livonia, Michigan and I can move articles into it.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a retool as a category about Livonia, Michigan proper. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:33, 7 December 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 result of the discussion was: do not rename. It may be necessary to follow this up with a nomination to deal with some of the subcategories created by the nominator when this nomination was ongoing. On balance, it would have been best if the nominator had held off from creating new categories until this discussion was concluded. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military recovery vehicles to Category:Armoured recovery vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename per

Qwertyus 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy rename per nom. -
  Flank speed 23:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose for the simple reason that they're not armoured. Several of the most significant WW2 wheeled recovery vehicles (most obviously the Scammells), also the German half-tracks and even the M578, were unarmoured. These will still require categorization, it would be incorrect to categorize them under this renamed category.

Of the armoured recovery vehicles, nearly all (the one exception I can think of being the Dragon Wagon) are tracked. There's already a sub-category for these at Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles.

The other issues are bogus. Common name is "recovery vehicle", because it's only common when already in a military context. Nor is Google Books the sole arbiter of anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Andy Dingley – and change the main article to something more accurate. A parent cat is
  talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We don't have a main article. Armoured recovery vehicle is a member of this category, but it's not the main article for it, as it (quite reasonably) only describes a sub-category of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry - I assumed the nom's claim above ("Speedy rename per
  talk) 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I wonder why the nominator even bothered with the pretence of consensus when they've already started a sequence of incorrect edits like this. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the nom is busy creating and populating a whole series of sub-categories for this. That even includes Wheeled armoured recovery vehicles, which really is superfluous as a cat - to the best of my knowledge there's only one entry for it. Whilst I'd see this cat tree as somewhat over-generous for a small set of articles in total (14 at present, potentially a few times that), they're presumably going to need MRV as a parent cat. So is this deletion nom still in force? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Hmm. Considering all that, I need to think on this one... -
  Flank speed 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose but allow creation of Category:Armoured recovery vehicles as a subcategory if there are sufficient articles to populate. Not everything in there appears to be armored so a rename would not be correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles. As armour is heavy, armoured vehicles tend to be tracked rather than wheeled. Recovery vehicles also need to be heavy, which tends to further exclude them from the narrow group of lightweight armoured vehicles. I can only think of one example (including those not listed on WP) where an armoured recovery vehicle used wheels rather than tracks. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 13 December 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 result of the discussion was: delete both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian EU Patent Inventors to Category:Wikipedian inventors

Nominator's rationale: In the context of user categorization, it does not seem to me that it should make much difference whether a user is named an inventor on US, EU or other patents. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added

involvement, abilities, skills, knowledge or understanding, or interests which are relevant to encyclopedia-building. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose Being named on a patent is objective and sourceable. Claiming to be an inventor is far from this - I wouldn't even dispute an attempt to delete it as unsupportably vague. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the reason, though, for creating a grouping of users who share this particular characteristic? What I mean by that is: how does this particular category
    facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I can't see any really good reason for it (which didn't stop me adding myself to it), but the fix for that is to delete both of them, not merge the one that's sourceable but of doubtful value into the one that's of no more value and even less clear definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a solid point. I've tagged Category:Wikipedian inventors and updated the nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - "EU Patent inventors" is overly-specific (We don't want to see a "patent inventors by country" category popping up), and even "Patent inventors" by itself has me wondering what potential topics any grouped users could collaborate on. Patents are so varied that the only thing they all have in common is that they are patent-able (which actually varies by country), so this is essentially a category for users who have been granted a patent for something - not a very helpful distinction. Additionally, I'd guess that most people who invent the technology don't actually file for the patent themselves, so there's no implied knowledge about the actual patent process either by membership in this category. It's essentially a category for "inventors", then, so a merge per (original) nom would have been appropriate...Except I agree that a category for "Wikipedian inventors" in general isn't very helpful either. As with the previous category, there are so many different things possible to invent that it's hard to imagine what things any such users could have in common enough to facilitate collaboration by grouping them together. VegaDark (talk) 01:57, 7 December 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 19:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Search and rescue incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I am not sure what the scope of this is supposed to be, but it contains mainly biographical articles of people who disappeared and whose fate remains unknown and/or for whom SAR was conducted (the only exception is Shavarsh Karapetyan, who rescued 20 people from drowning but otherwise has nothing to do with traditional search and rescue). There are more appropriate categories for this, including Category:Missing people and Category:People declared dead in absentia. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per her contribution history, Una Smith created the category on 7 December 2009 for
  Steve Fossett search/Steve_Fossett#Death, who disappeared three months eariler on Monday September 3, 2007. If someone is missing, there is going to be a search, so any article such a SAR blurb could be put into this category. They never did rescue Fossett, so the category didn't fit his incident. The topic area seems to be lose with categories. Some other relevant categories are Category:People involved in aviation accidents or incidents, Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents, Category:Incident management, Category:Search and Rescue helicopter, Category:Volunteer search and rescue organisations. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:33, 20 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Decapitated albums to Category:Decapitated (band) albums

Propose renaming Category:Decapitated members to Category:Decapitated (band) members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article is at Decapitated (band). Decapitated members conjures up many things, not all of them relating to members of a band. Tassedethe (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – to reduce ambiguity and scope for witticisms.
  talk) 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 7 December 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 result of the discussion was: redirect Category:Incidents to Category:Events and purge; delete the rest.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category groups unrelated subjects on the basis of a shared name to the point that it is redundant to Category:Events. (An incident is defined as an "event or occurrence".) This category was meant to contain pages related to diplomacy and international relatons but, due to the ambiguous name, it has become a catch-all for any page with "incidents" in the title. I created and partially populated Category:International incidents, so I believe that this category can safely be deleted without any loss of navigational function (all pages are otherwise categorized, mostly in categories for accidents or controversies). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and categoryredirect to Category:Events. 65.93.12.43 (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category redirect probably is a good idea, but such specific pages perhaps should not be merged into such a general category, especially as they are all otherwise categorized (and most can be reached through one or more of the subcategories of Category:Events). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incidents by country

Category:Incidents by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Incidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A poorly developed and unnecessary intermediate layer. The sole member, Category:Disasters, can be reached via Category:Destruction, which is a subcategory of Category:Events. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was part of several dozen changes made to ensure that mere "incidents" did not automaticlly get rolled up into "accidents" as it does with CSX 8888 incident and, in turn, get rolled up into "disasters" which it clearly isn't. This turned out to have broad ramifications to all of Transportation which has concentrated on article development and ignored mis-classification by media hype. Categories need to accurately reflect their articles content. If this is kept, it will ensure that several dozens articles are accurately classified under Transportation. More needs to be done. Transportation needs to get control of categories back from the hypers. Accuracy is as important there as it is in the rest of the encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this category tree exists solely for transportation- and accident-related pages, then that needs to be clarified—i.e., the categories need to be renamed to Category:Transport incidents by country or Category:Accidents and incidents by country. At present, there is no clear difference between Incidents and Category:Events categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are probably correct. I was merely imitating what Transportation already had set up, not trying to change their basic format. As I mentioned, their categorization needs addressing badly and involves hundreds of categories. They have been overlooking these, apparently. A name change is more that I can personally handle. I am having enough trouble trying to get them to categorize things npov. I am not a Transportation person, BTW. Just stumbled on an article, saw something that wasn't right; tried to change it. Realized I had ahold of Tar Baby and tried to limit my exposure. Without success, so far. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, it may be better to nominate the whole of Category:Transport disasters for renaming to Category:Transport accidents and incidents (similar to Category:Industrial accidents and incidents). I don't mind writing a nomination for that category, but it would be easier to just rename those categories than to create a parallel but separate 'Transport incidents' category tree. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. More than I can handle. I have no pov. That was the point I was trying to make originally. Goodbye. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incidents by year

Propose merging Category:Incidents by year to Category:Events by year

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the nomenclature perhaps needs to be changed to include "Transportation", the label "incident" has a precise meaning withing the National Safety Transportation Board classification. It would not do to lump them in with "events" at this level, with "events" being a runaway train being lumped in with a visit from the King and Queen of Romania. Maybe some higher level. Student7 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is, in effect, what has happened. The category currently contains subcategories for disasters, terrorist incidents and volcanic eruptions, none of which are primarily transportation-related. With regard to the NTSB's definition of "incident" ... how widely-accepted is that definition? The NTSB is, after all, a U.S. agency not an international one. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've fought this as long as I can. I'm not a Transportation person. I'm outta here! Student7 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Novels by Alexandre Dumas, père to Category:Novels by Alexandre Dumas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform the category to existing Alexandre Dumas categories, and to reflect recent move of main article to Alexandre Dumas. Dohn joe (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 7 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Political people by country to Category:Political people by nationality

• Category:Politicians by country to Category:Politicians by nationality
• Category:Politicians by country and city to Category:Politicians by nationality and city

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:People by occupation and nationality and to accurately reflect the scope of the subcategories, which categorize by nationality rather than jurisdiction (of course, there is high overlap between the two). With regard to categorizing by jurisdiction, I think we would do better to continue categorizing by individual office (e.g., Mayors of {City}, Governors of {Province} and so on) under Category:Political office-holders by country. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom as they are all in fact 'by nationality'. The nom seems to cover all aspects of this, with all of which I agree. (In many countries one has to be a national to hold any political office. No doubt there are exceptions but it is hardly worth setting up rival category trees.)
  talk) 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename all per nom. I agree that it's not worth splitting hairs for this one "by occupation" tree. I can think of some examples where a person in the FOOian politicians tree is not actually a national of that country, but I agree it's not worthwhile making the distinction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current names - The categories that are slotted into these larger categories are defined primarily by the person's political jurisdiction, not their nationality, and the problem of a politician whose national origin differs from their political jurisdiction is not purely hypothetical. Examples:

• Golda Meir -- She is categorized as (among others) a Ukrainian Jew, a person from Kiev, a Wisconsin socialist, an American immigrant to Israel, and an American Zionist, but the only country-specific politician category she belongs in is Category:Israeli politicians (she's in several subcats of that one). Slotting her into Category:Ukrainian politicians and Category:Wisconsin politicians (to name two possibilities) would be absurd, but if the parent category is renamed to "Politicians by nationality," I believe it would be necessary.
• Valdas Adamkus -- Is correctly categorized as a Lithuanian politician (actually he's in Category:Presidents of Lithuania, but also fits appropriately into some American nationality categories. Similar problem to Golda Meir.
• Sam Houston -- Famously was governor of two U.S. states and president of an independent country, but arguably his only nationality was American (Texas was a country for a while, but it's not usually considered to be a nationality). --Orlady (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make the entire tree different than the standard on behalf of a handful of instances seems to me unnecessary. I'm not convinced it's even an issue in all of the instances you cite. If someone is not notable for having been a politician in a particular country, then they can just be removed from the corresponding nationality tree. (For instance, I don't think there is a need to categorize Meir anywhere within the "American politicians" tree—in any case, socialists aren't necessarily politicians, so it seems to be more of a quirk in the category tree than anything.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 13 December 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 result of the discussion was: speedy delete, user request. Next time you can just use {{

Bencherlite^Talk 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Choral Societies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Please delete; incorrect capitalisation. S a g a C i t y (talk) 13:59, 6 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Kure, Japan to Category:People from Kure, Hiroshima

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Convention is to disambiguate using the name of the state, county, province, canton and in this case prefecture, etc., not the name of the country. Mayumashu (talk) 12:45, 6 December 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Volcanic eruptions by year
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 1997
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 1998
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 1999
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2000
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2001
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2002
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2003
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2004
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2005
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2006
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2007
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2008
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2009
• Category:Volcanoes erupting in 2010

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Useless categorization scheme, since most of the highly active volcanoes are erupting continuously for many years. With these scheme, many articles would be categorized with additional dozens categories. - Darwinek (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and consensus of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes#Categories for years of eruptions. --Avenue (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Over categorization. Volcanoguy 13:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it make sense to condense the categories into a decade-based scheme? - Eureka Lott 00:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would limit, but not avoid, the problem of many additional categories. For example, the list at San Cristóbal Volcano#Eruptive history, which is likely to be far from complete, lists eruptions in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I can also see some value in readers being able to readily browse those volcanoes that exhibit significant eruptive characteristics -by year of eruption. However I do also agree with Darwinek (talk) on the point that "most of the highly active volcanoes are erupting continuously for many years". Maybe a consideration of per decade is more appropriate as per Eureka Lott above as that would still give emphasis to those with eruptive activity without the volume of categories that a per year structure requires. I do see some value in it in that if someone wants to see what erupted and where in any particular year then this is a quick and easy way to give access to that information. However I understand how "over categorisation" could be seen as an issue with this. The reason that I have commented it that I just used this category structure to enquire as to a particular years eruptions. Therefore I can see it has some value, indeed it did seem to be something useful to me when I used it just now. Felix (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination as over categorization as I have the same concerns as others that a number of volcanoes would be added to dozens of new categories which would make quite a mess on the article page. I see some merit in perhaps doing it by decade only but I think having list articles per year might be the better approach. RedWolf (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated by RedWolf - but only after using the contents of these categories to help populate the category tree Category:Volcanic events by century. It turns out that few individual volcanic events have their own articles, but the article about an active volcano often includes fairly extensive discussions of its historic eruptions. Those volcano articles have been categorized in categories like "Natural disasters in [Country]" and "1902 natural disasters" and the parent category Category:Volcanic events, so there is plenty of precedent for categorizing them in event categories. However, they only should be placed into chronological categories that correspond to events that are actually discussed in the articles. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 11 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename albums, delete general category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Libido to Category:Líbido (band)

Propose renaming Category:Libido albums to Category:Líbido (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Needs disambiguation to match main article

Líbido (band). Libido has a different principle meaning and it is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename
  talk) 10:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Rename Category:Libido albums to Category:Líbido (band) albums, but keep the Category:Libido or rename to Category:Líbido (band) It will contain items related to the band. D6h ^{What's on your mind?} 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What are these potential items? The argument against an eponymous category is precisely that it tends to collect a mishmash of articles connected tenuously to the subject with no clear inclusion criteria.
  talk) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here is one of the potential items for the category: Category:Líbido (band) album covers. D6h ^{What's on your mind?} 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK to delete eponymous cat (nom) unless there is other stuff to legitimately add to the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the subcategory per nom and delete the eponymous category. Both subcategories are adequately categorized in Category:Albums by artist or Category:Album covers by artist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:14, 8 December 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 result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bath to Category:Bath, Somerset

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match article Bath, Somerset. Bath is ambiguous and there are several places of the same name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Less ambiguous, no good argument against. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 7 December 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 result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Political posters of Australasia to Category:Political posters of Oceania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For continent categories, "Oceania" is typically used rather than "Australasia". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:11, 6 December 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.