Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

Category:Sylvester James songs

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:Sylvester (singer) songs. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sylvester James songs to Category:Sylvester songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't think there's another singing Sylvester whom this guy might be confused with and he's not known by his full name as a performer. His article is at Sylvester (singer) but I don't think the category needs the parenthetical. I Want My GayTV (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd go with Category:Sylvester (singer) songs. When the name used for the article and the name used in categories is different, generally confusion results. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Sylvester (singer) songs. Sylvester mentions several people who might well have recorded songs. Occuli (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I was just listening to my Antipope Sylvester IV Greatest Hits CD in the car this morning! No one else at Sylvester is known professionally as "Sylvester". Should someone one day write an article on "Drinkinstein" it would be categorized as a Sylvester Stallone song and there would be no confusion. I Want My GayTV (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Antipope Sylvester VI"? More likely the reference to others was indicating Hannah Sylvester, Michael Sylvester, or Robin Sylvester. Songs by singers with a first name and a surname are often referred to colloquially as "SURNAME songs" (especially within certain populations or music movements in which the musician is a part), so the possibility of confusion is not zero. But personally, if I heard the undisambiguated "Sylvester songs", I would of course think back to the 1951 classic "I Tawt I Taw A Puddy Tat", sung by Tweety and—yes—"Sylvester". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 7 February 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.

Category:Governors of Russian America

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. If they were known in English as "governors," then that's the term we should be using in our English Wikipedia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Governors of Russian America to Category:Governors of the Russian-American Company

Nominator's rationale: They were governors of the company and employed by the company (which happened to have a monopoly), not government employees. Just like Category:Governors of the Hudson's Bay Company. TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Russian-American Company article indicates that the government took the company over in 1818. The term "Governors" may also be an issue as the article indicates these people were called Russian for "Chief Managers" and were known only in English as "governors". (I have no direct knowledge of this subject area and am unsure of the reliability of the article.)RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, but the point remains. It was a primarily a commercial position, not a political position. The title "Chief Manager" that you mention illustrates this clearly. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:38, 1 February 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.

Category:Mercedes-Benz platforms

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:Mercedes-Benz model codes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mercedes-Benz platforms to Category:Mercedes-Benz development codes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are not platform names. >Typ932 ^T·C 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

type932 makes a valid point. These are internal model codes and are not related to individual platforms as the codes are different for say, an estate or coupe, even though they could share significant underpinnings. Not sure if development codes is quite the right name though. Warren Whyte (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as they are not "platform codes". However, these codes are used beyond the developmemt phase, so "Mercedes-Benz model codes" is more appropriate. The convention should also apply for BMW, Toyota, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:22, 7 February 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.

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment Armageddon

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. The parent category is definitive. Ruslik_Zero 14:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World Wrestling Entertainment Armageddon to Category:WWE Armageddon

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the parent Category:World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view events and World Wrestling Entertainment. (This was renamed from 'Armageddon' via cfd a couple of years ago.) Occuli (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you should also see the sister categories too. Not even one has "World Wrestling Entertainment" in their names, if is in the name, than they use the "WWE" abbreviation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename: All the similar events in Category:World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view events use the abbreviation (although, again, the overarching category does not.)RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep present name (assuming we need it at all) -- We expand abbreviations in cat-names, not contract them. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case maybe I should nominate Category:WWE Extreme Rules and Category:WWE One Night Stand for rename? Well maybe I will do it after this was closed as keep. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:37, 5 February 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.

Category:Library and information science

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Library and information science to Category:Library science

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The corresponding article has long since been split into Library science and Information science, but the categories still remain at Category:Library and information science and Category:Information science. —Ruud 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: Both Glossary of library and information science and Portal:Library and information science appear at the top of the cat and LIS is used as a phrase. Library Science is not listed as the lead article, although this may be an oversight.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the category, these two article are a historical artefact from the time when there was still a single article on Library and information science. Also see the comment by User:DGG at Talk:Library science#name of topic. —Ruud 02:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Pnm (talk) 01:42, 3 February 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.

Category:Compiler theory

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Compiler theory to Category:Compiler construction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Common name. —Ruud 13:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Actually many articles in this category are not really theoretical, but cover different practical aspects of compiler implementation. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per articles not being theoretical, and it being the more common name. --Pnm (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match main article Hmains (talk) 18:22, 4 February 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.

Category:Static code analysis

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:Static program analysis tools. Ruslik_Zero 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Static code analysis to Category:Static code analysis tools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The static code analysis tools should be separated from the theory and algorithms. (Split has been performed, this category currently only contains the tools.) —Ruud 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate rename to Category:Static program analysis tools per nom's recent move of Static program analysis and the split-out parent category Category:Static program analysis. --Pnm (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps yes. I'm not really certain what the most common name these tools is. They are also simply referred to as static checkers. Another complication is that some of the tools in this category actually perform dynamic analyses, so code analysis tools or program analysis tools would be other options. Anything including the word "tools" would be an improvement though. —Ruud 18:50, 3 February 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.

Category:Cities in California

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:Incorporated cities and towns in California. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cities in California to Category:Municipalities in California

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Teh "cities" category is defined as including all incorporated cities and towns, which equates to "municipalities" the subject of the parent. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Merge per nom. I moved List of cities in California to List of municipalities in California going on two years ago. As that list explains, CA municipalities may be formally titled as "cities" or "towns," but those labels are completely arbitrary and do not indicate any substantive distinction, which is why they were listed all together, and why they are categorized all together. Compare with other states that have separate classes of municipalities that are distinguished by population and lawmaking abilities, where it makes sense to categorize and classify them separately. postdlf (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that may leave nothing in Category:Cities in the United States by state, indicating to the unwary to think that California has no cities. Hmains (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Cities and towns in California to avoid definitional problems and conform with the naming structure used in many other countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment according to List of municipalities in California, "There are 481 incorporated municipalities in California, of which 459 are called cities and 22 are called towns." One alternative might be to remove the towns from Category:Cities in California and just leave them directly in Category:Municipalities in California, but this will not work well in the subcats of Category:Cities in California by county as there are no county municipality categories. Hmains (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Incorporated cities and towns in California, the term "municipality" is not used in California, so let's call these as they are: incorporated cities and towns (which under Calilfornia's government code sections 20 & 21 are treated the same, but differently than unincorporated areas).[see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=2710026486+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve]. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the word "municipality" does not appear in the Government Code does not mean that the term is not used in California ... just not used in that particular context. —Stepheng3 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Incorporated cities and towns in California to make it clear that both types of municipality are included in the category. Note that subcategories such as Category:Cities in Sonoma County, California should also be renamed to conform to this ancestor. —Stepheng3 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 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.

Category:Rocket Richard Trophy winners

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rocket Richard Trophy winners to Category:Maurice Richard Trophy winners

Nominator's rationale: Per the NHL (see [1]), the trophy is named for Maurice Richard using his given first name and not his nickname. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. At the very least, it should change to match the article, Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy, but I happen to think both the article and category should be renamed as suggested. Will bring up with WP:HOCKEY for further discussion on that point. Reso lute 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: While I disagree that there's any imperative to name articles and categories by their subjects' official names - the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúnculas of the world are exactly why WP:PRIMARYNAME is in play - "Maurice Richard Trophy" outGoogles "Rocket Richard Trophy" by something like a 60:1 margin. It's tough to argue that the current cat name represents the most widely used one for the trophy. Ravenswing 18:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm what search term did you use? "Rocket Richard Trophy" is 500k for me vs. "Maurice Richard Trophy" at 279K and "Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy" at 110k. It actually appears to be 2 to 1 in the other direction, more if you add the two that include "Rocket" together. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The problem is, the official name is actually the Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy as can be seen on the picture of the trophy and was indeed what they announced the trophy to be named when it was created. However, I am willing to conceed that this may have become a common name issue although as I mention above, the numbers from google suggest Rocket Richard Trophy had a 2:1 ratio for hits. Making it the more common name. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the trophy-in-question's name plate. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the image of the trophy, I would be willing to suggest a target of Category:Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy winners as being appropriate also. While most of the other trophies are known strictly by their last name (Hart, Vezina, etc.), the first and nickname both appear to be important (possibly equally) and actually used for this one (viz. WP:COMMONNAME), as suggested by what's out there. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the alternate rename proposal as well. Whichever brings consistency to the category and article titles. Reso lute 16:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would be ok with this version instead. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (listify if necessary) -- This appears to be an awards category, which we only allow for the most major awards. This is not a Nobel prize or on that level. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing an athletic award such as this to a Nobel Prize seems somewhat spurious. While the award has not existed for as long as some of the other trophies given by the league, its importance is no less major than the league's other awards, as it is given to the goals leader in a season, and the other awards all appear similarly categorized. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite possibly one of the most important individual awards in the sport. To compare it to the Nobel Prize is a bit silly since its an athletic award. It is extremely common to have award winner categories for sports. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 7 February 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.

Category:Streams of Zionism

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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Streams of Zionism to Category:Types of Zionism

Nominator's rationale: The creator of this category User Midrashah (talk · contribs) is clearly working from a rough Israeli-Hebrew language "translation" to English. However, similar categories on the English Wikipedia use the word "Types" for this kind of categorization, such as Category:Types of communities; Category:Types of military forces; Category:Types of organization; Category:Types of museum; Category:Types of horses; Category:Types of scientific fallacy, etc, etc, etc. All of which are correct and appropriate usage of English as applied to a WP category's name, as this category should be, per general guidelines in Wikipedia:Category names. (This could perhaps be a C2C Speedy per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Speedy criteria, but this CfR allows for greater due process.) IZAK (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Types of Zionism per above. IZAK (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rename "Streams" is the more prominent terminology in the reliable sources. For example refer to the book "Streams of Zionism: Revisionist Zionism, Religious Zionism, Labor Zionism, General Zionists, Cultural Zionism, Hovevei Zion". Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Marokwitz: It still sounds like a stultified translation from Hebrew, that in clear English simply means "Types" and that's how "types" of things are categorized on Wikipedia. The other choice would be to use the word "Varieties" as in Category:Varieties of Modern Greek; Category:Varieties of rice; Category:Varieties of English templates, etc. The only other way that "Streams" is used on WP categories is to refer to actual streams of water such as Category:Streams of Texas etc, or perhaps to other proper names, such as Category:Stream ciphers etc (do a WP search with "Category:Stream ___" for yourself and see what comes up.) IZAK (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: "Streams" has a very classy literary ring to it. But, if a non-expert stumbles on this category, it would likely be interpreted as small rivers in Israel.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

translation of "stream" also means kind of "denominations". In any case, whatever the best translation is acceptble to me. I would leave it up to English natives to make the chose. --Midrashah (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, User Midrashah (talk · contribs) is (a) the creator of this category and (b) admits to a lack of expertise in English and (c) is not opposed to renaming of this category, per the reasons cited in the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom's comments. I agree that it's not necessary for WP to adopt the traditional phrasing in this case, as we're not dealing with a proper noun with an article to which WP:COMMONNAME would apply. "Types" would seem to be the regular modern English way of referring to this topic. Perhaps the nominated category could be retained as a category redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 8 February 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.

Category:HTTP

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 to rename. Ruslik_Zero 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HTTP to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, Hypertext Transfer Protocol. This category had been nominated in March last year with its sub-categories; while there was a clear consensus not to rename the whole batch, the consensus on this one was not quite so clear. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rename, HTTP is more common and recognizable by readers. Marokwitz (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article, put category redirect on Category:HTTP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rename, Per Marokwitz, and nom-article for rename, per COMMON NAME. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Rename to match main article. HTTP has been a redirect for years. (Usual advice to 'keepers' is to get the article moved first.) Occuli (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Rename What HTTP stands for has become trivia. While Occuli raises a good point about the lead article, I think that article is what deviates from the common name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article, and to expand abbreviation. Make Category:HTTP a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and redirect. It's a really technical category. The readers and editors who care about this category will easily recognize the expanded name (and I doubt there would be consensus to rename the main article). --Pnm (talk) 01:36, 3 February 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.

Category:Program analysis

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Ruslik_Zero 14:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Program analysis to Category:Computer program analysis

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fix ambiguity with other kinds of programs, such as nonprofit programs and Category:Social programs, and make the category name self-explanatory. The main article was recently moved to Program analysis, which seems fine, but the category should be easily identifiable regardless of context. Pnm (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and ambiguity. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is premature disambiguation. "Program analysis" is the colloquial name of the field and I'm not convinced it will be easily confused in the future with e.g. program evaluation. If this category is renamed Category:Program transformation should be renamed for consistency as well. —Ruud 12:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose at this time, as the category name matches the current name of its main article. Hmains (talk) 18:13, 4 February 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.

Category:Basins of the continental coast of the English Channel

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. A subcategory or subcategories can be created if needed to distinguish between French and British areas, but with two entries now, this seems unneeded.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Basins of the continental coast of the English Channel to Category:Drainage basins of the English Channel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basins is ambiguous. This is also a triple intersection that may not be defining. Proposal simplifies the name and hopefully add clarity. It may be desirable to also move these contents into Category:Drainage basins of the United Kingdom in addition to renaming or use that as an alternative to the proposed rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Continental drainage basins of the English Channel. The two categories (Category:Seine basin and Category:Somme basin) are clearly on the continental coast of the English Channel so the category is correctly named, if somewhat of a mouthful. The category clearly falls into the overall structure of Category:Atlantic European basins, and within that category the groupings should match that for the North Sea i.e. Category:British basins of the North Sea and Category:Continental basins of the North Sea. There needs to be an extra category Category:Drainage basins of the English coast of the English Channel or Category:English drainage basins of the English Channel. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name per nom. The continental shelf is under Merry England as well you know. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 4 February 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.

Category:Basins of New Zealand

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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 14:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Basins of New Zealand to Category:Drainage basins of New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basins is ambiguous. One of these clearly is a drainage basin, the other gives no idea from the article what it is. Delete, upmerge or other rename should be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Vegas, is there a point where this naming convention becomes so established you can just run these through speedy renaming?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably if we had an expert who was leading this. For me I have to look at each one and try to figure out what is the correct choice. Since the categories are thinly populated, and in many cases the articles are not well written, the process is slow. I think I'm through a good portion of these so there may not be many more. I did just split Category:Basins of Antarctica and I'm not sure if that needs upmerging or some other action. I think the last two that need inspection are Category:Basins of China and Category:Basins of France. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: both of the basins in this category are probably better characterised as geographical features (intermontane basins) than hydrological ones, although they each form an upper part of a larger drainage basin (being part of the Waitaki and Kawarau/Clutha River catchments respectively). I'd be happy for us to have a Category:Drainage basins of New Zealand, but I'm not convinced these basins belong in it. So while I agree the current category name is ambiguous, I'm not sure renaming it to the suggested alternative is appropriate either.

BTW, our article for the Wakatipu Basin describes it as being much smaller than independent sources do, e.g. Te Ara. --Avenue (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are by your own words, within drainage basins. What are you proposing as an alternative? If this rename were done wouldn't we at least be moving in a correct direction with the name? Of the two articles in this category, only one is identified as intermontane and so far this has not been deemed in need of a category. So the merge as proposed and the creation of Category:Intermontane basins could also be a solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are they part of a drainage basin, they are the upper part. So they are coherent drainage basins - just not ones that are typically identified as such. So maybe the proposed renaming is fine. There are other NZ basins that are not coherent drainage basins, such as Hamner and Kaitoke Basins. These are pull-apart basins with a river running in one side and out the other (the Waiau and Hutt Rivers respectively). But since we don't have articles for those basins, I guess we don't have to worry about them at present. Okay, rename as proposed. --Avenue (talk) 10:34, 10 February 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.

Category:Basins of Germany

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Basins of Germany to Category:Drainage basins of Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basins is ambiguous. Both of these are for river basins which should fall into the drainage basins categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to clarify that these are items of physical geography, rather than water containers used for washing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 4 February 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.

Category:Basins of Slovenia

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:Drainage basins of Slovenia. There was no consensus on "Slovenia" versus "Adriatic Sea", though, so further discussion on that point could prove useful. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Basins of Slovenia to Category:Drainage basins of Slovenia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another single entry ambiguous category. I would not oppose deletion. I'm basing this rename on what little information the article has, but it does appear to be a drainage basin. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. The other alternative would be to merge to Category:Drainage basins of the Adriatic Sea (which does not appear to exist). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I prefer your suggestion. That would also mean adding Category:Landforms of Slovenia to the article and dropping it from this merge target. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "drainage basins" to clarify that these are items of physical geography, rather than water containers used for washing. Neutral on the choice between "Slovenia" and "Adriatic Sea". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. There are several notable basins (geographical entities) in Slovenia that will sooner or latter get their own article (Ljubljana Basin, Celje Basin, Velenje Basin, Novo Mesto Basin, Krško Basin, Pivka Basin). I think the merger is not warranted due to all these potential articles and by the way, the majority of waters of these basins flow to the Black Sea. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name per nom. A new cat of Category:Drainage basins of the Adriatic Sea will soon become an additional requirement. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 4 February 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.