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. Track and field is more common usage in Canadian English, and keep 'athletics' in parentheses for clarity. Mayumashu (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. "Athletics" signifies all sports in Canada (as exemplified by the 19th century Montreal AAA, which covered ice hockey and lacrosse and snowshoeing as an "athletics association"; or the various university athletics departments in Canada that cover all sports.) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as suggested. The parenthesis is unnecessary because track and field is clear and always means athletics. So no need to disambiguate. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Unnecessary layer with no other contents, as the main List of ghost towns is also structured by country. I have proposed down-merging rather than up-merging, because the sub-cat has a valid parent "categories by country". – FayenaticLondon21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably per nom. We have categories by continent. We have a single list for the world (probably incomplete). We are not going to get any sibling categories for this one, which measn that this wone is a waste of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: Navigationally, it could be useful as it makes a common parent for the well-populated subcategories, but I notice they link each other in hatnotes anyway. --Qetuth (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have never accepted we need eponymous categories to hold all songs and albums by x categories. The issue here is there is only one article in the category itself, and thus no clear need for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2013 (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.
European basketball biography stubs (four categories)
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 and merge to appropriate nationality category. If there is no appropriate nationality category yet, the article will end up in Category:European basketball biography stubs. I will not create new nationality subcategories in doing this close, but others may wish to do so if there are enough articles to justify doing that.Good Ol’factory(talk)05:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (upmerge as necessary) per nom. These are made-up pseudo-divisions. Redivide by country. Editors who specialize in sports articles relating to Monaco or Poland or where ever are not going to look for regional stubs, but national ones. Ten such national subcats exist already, and the rest of these stubs should be sorted into similar subcats (at least where they qualify per WP:STUBSORT rules). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge. Fictional divisions. Eleven national subcats is not excessive children for the European category, and would certainly speed up looking for a category/template for those countries with borderline directions. --Qetuth (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to European category. I suspect that the result will be rather too large a category for comfort, but the solution is that the articles should be distributed into their appropriate national categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (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.
Category:Albums conducted by Ross Bagdasarian, Sr.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep (creator) It's true that a conductor is generally more important in classical or jazz and less important in pop or rock, but a producer is also less important in classical or jazz and more important in pop or rock. Rather than arbitrarily decide that these albums should have a certain categorization scheme due to their genre and those shouldn't, we should apply the same scheme to all albums and if a certain category is relevant, we can include it. Also, there are several pop jazz albums (e.g. Frank Sinatra, Quincy Jones) that include orchestration. These aren't clear and bright distinctions, but general trends. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯20:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NALBUMS, "an album may be categorized by a characteristic (such as producer, composer, record-label, etc.) only if it is a defining characteristic of the album (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness." For this category, the conductor is not a defining aspect of the album within it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me01:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not per nom. Koavf/Justin is correct, but doesn't actually go far enough: Orchestration was actually a major part of pop and even folk music (Tim Rose, Nick Drake) from the 1960s well into the mid-1970s, not just for "crooners" with large backing bands. That said, this particular category only has one item in it, so it does not need to exist. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.23:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument whether arrangers are notable in pop music is for another discussion and we need to concentrate on this category only. There is one entry in this category which is also produced by RB(and in that category) and if it wasn't marketed as Alvin and the Boys, the name of the singer would be Bagdasarian. The music business is a strange business, producer can be producer or it can mean the person that hired the producer, arranger can be mean arranger or it can mean the person who hired the arranger, or the person with the final say, or it can (and often does these days) denote the political/financial machinations of a group of people (U2 and Coldplay spring immediately to mind). Having established that for this album RB is the guy in charge ("the producer") I can't find it in my heart to support the existence of a category which says "I hired myself." If RB has been hired by somebody else to arrange another album my objection would no longer hold water. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge with "produced by")-- This is a question as to how Sing Again with The Chipmunks shpuld be categorised. The article descibes Ross Bagdasarian as producer. Even where a pop song has a backing orchestra, I would be doubtful whether it would be appropriate to categorise the conductor. It might be different with classical music albums, where the name of the conductor and the orchestra normally appear in bold type on the cover. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript. I need not remind anybody here that categorization should be defining matters relating to the subject matter. I fail to see how this category is defining when the sole member of the category does not confirm, nor deny, that RB "conducted" the album. I have already given my deleve !vote above. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such categories may work in some cases, but since Bagdasarian was the producer of the album, and it is already categorized there, it makes no sense to add this additional categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since at this point the voices of Alvin and the Chipmucks were all done by Bagdasarian, he is not only the producer but the singer as well. It makes no sense to seperately list him as the conductor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (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 Ukraine did not exist in 1907 or in 1911. What is now Ukraine was divided between 3 countries. The smallest part was in Romania, and probably can be ignored since none of the involved things were in that area. A large chunk was in Austria-Hungary, divided between Austria (specifically Galicia, which also included a large part of what is today Poland), and Hungary. One of the articles in this category was in that area. The majority of modern Ukraine was divided between about 14 provinces (guberniyas) of the Russian Empire. None of these were named Ukraine. Approximately five of them included areas not in modern Ukraine. To make things more fun one included the Crimea, which would be part of the Russian SFSR from 1917 until 1954. In sum, Ukraine does not exist in any way in 1907, and since the category groups together things that are happening in multiple nations at the time, we should just delete it as a misleading category. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since one of the things involved was established in Lemburg (Lvov/Lviv) that was never part of the Russian Empire, that does not work. Anyway, Ruthenia I believe also included part of modern Belarus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to equivalent "Rusian Empire" categories. Lvov was part of Russian Empire until 1917, which then included a substantial part of Poland. Lvov was only Polish between the wars and before the partition of Poland in the late 18th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Lvov was part of Austria-Hungary. Then there are places like Ungvar, that were in Hungary almost from time immemorial, they were not even historically part of Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the most relevant part of the Lviv article "The city started to grow rapidly, becoming the 4th largest in Austria-Hungary, according to the census of 1910." According to the 1900 census Lemburg/Lvov had a population that was 49.4% Polish and only 19.9% Ukrainian. It was the capital of Galicia, a part of the Austrian portion of the Austrian Empire. It was never in Russia, and did not become part of the Soviet Union until the end of World War II.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ungvar was 80% Hungarian according to the 1910 census. So it makes no sense to put 1910 establishments in Ungvar (like it's synagoguge) in a Ukrainian category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the synagogue being now in Ukraine? It makes sense from one perspective, not from another. No reason not to have both perspectives. Fram (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category says nothing about where it is now, just where it was established in the year in question. To call a city that was 80% Hungarian and within the boundaries of the Kingdom of Hungary, "Ukraine" is just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When it was founded there was no "National" in the name. If there had been, it would msot cenrtainly not have referred to Ukraine, A-since there was no such nation at the time, and b-because the Ukrainians were a minority in Lviv, which was almsot half Polish, and much less than that Ukrainian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, things established in year X in what is now country Y is a useful and logical categorization. There is no reason to loose useful information for pedantic reasons. Fram (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: Is there no other way to preserve this on a regional basis? What was what is now Slovenia called when part of A-H? This upmerge would lose genuinely useful information. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Slovene lands had no political status. Modern Slovenia was divided between multiple areas and was an intigral and indistinguishable part of Austria. There was no level below Austria that included all of what is today Slovenia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to X establishments in Carniola and X establishments in Gorizia and Gradisca. Slovenia did not formally exist at the time, but Austria-Hungary consisted of crown lands, such as Carniola as well as Gorizia and Gradisca, and there is already Category:Establishments in Carniola by year. A deletion would mean the loss of categorisation by region, which is the major point of such categories. --Eleassarmy talk15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the categories are worth of being created to allow for tracking the establishments in the territory of what is now Slovenia, because there surely are readers interested in this kind of information. --Eleassarmy talk10:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, without prejudice to possible splits between Austrian and Hungarian provincial categories IF the categories become large enough to require splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, things established in year X in what is now country Y is a useful and logical categorization. There is no reason to loose useful information for pedantic reasons. Losing the link between those establishments and the fact that they are now in Slovenia doesn't help any reader. Fram (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2013 (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: The name of the breed is American Quarter Horse, and yes "Horse" is always included (otherwise it would be confused with US coinage), so it is capitalized along with the rest of the breed name. Cf. Norwegian Forest Cat, etc. (When confusion between the breed and something else would not arise, the animal type is dropped entirely, as in British Spotted, or kept as a parenthetical disambiguator if necessary, as in Siamese (cat).) — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.09:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support:While this editor has proposed some things that are causing problems elsewhere for WikiProject Equine, this particular change is appropriate. Montanabw(talk)23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename without the word "Influential". If the horse is notable; fine. But we cannot have a slew of categories of influential this and that - a very bad precedent and a slippery slope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK OK with dumping "influential." Maybe if you are moving, consider making it Category:American Quarter Horse mares, just in case we have a few major winning horses who never went on to have babies. "Broodmare" inherently implies having offspring. Can't think of any examples at the moment, but in the Thoroughbred world, there are several, such as Ruffian (horse). Montanabw(talk)20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
OPPOSE: A filly is a juvenile; almost all fillies (if they don't die) become mares. Mare is a term of art in the horse world, and appropriate for use here. Montanabw(talk)23:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While categories (largely) require parent categories, sibling categories are unnecessary and would be inappropriate in this case. "Female horse," in this context, is a clumsy synonym for "mare". Miniapolis (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition comment: The category "individual male horses" is there because it encompasses both stallions and geldings. I think the reason that happened is because a stallion can become a gelding with a snip of the castrators, so some male horses could, at least in theory, land in both. However, frankly, I don't think that many horses would be affected and the separate categories for them would be more useful (famous geldings are, in fact, well worth noting, as most famous horses tend to be stallions, with horses like Funny Cide being an exception) On the other hand, all fillies that don't die prematurely become mares. Let's at least use the real words when we can. Montanabw(talk)20:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This was just renamed here but should not have been done because it contains programmes broadcast by ITV and CITV not programmes broadcast by "Children's ITV" as presumed by the nomination. CITV was introduced in 1983 and there are programmes in the category such as Ace of Wands broadcast 1970-72 which was not a CITV programme. The new proposed name matches Category:BBC children's television programmes. I could also envisage a CITV subcategory. (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2013 (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.
Delete as the template suffices for navigation. The category also contains one film for which Zimmer did the music but I do not think this is appropriate; the discography (should it be "filmography"?) is better for finding the films for which he did the music. – FayenaticLondon21:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add more articles to a Category:Films and television shows scored by Hans Zimmer subcat. Not all, by any stretch, of the films/TV he has scored (in whole or part) have soundtrack albums available, so this would not be redundant with the albums subcat or discography in the article. Categories and navboxes are not mutually exclusive, and the existence of a navbox is not a CFD rationale by itself. More articles that already exist can be added (possibly more than just films/TV, but probably not right this moment); more articles can be written on material that belongs in this category; the category already has sufficient articles in it to be kept; and unless Zimmer dies very soon, it's very likely that he will produce more, notable material that will generate more articles for this category and its subcats. All told, I think that's five different reasons to keep this category. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.22:51, 2 January 2013 (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 The current name is ambiguous. If it followed the model of Category:American colonial people it would be for people who resided in Belgium when it was a colony. Before people get up in arms and claim such an intepretation is ludicrous I should point out that Southern Netherlands, which is an article on a past entity in what is today Belgium is in Category:Former Austrian colonies, so this is a very possible intepretation of the category, although it is not the one intended, so we need to rename the category to make its intent clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The uses of American colonies, suggest to me that the best way to avoid the ambiguity inherent in the name is to use the form "colonies of Belgium". It seems no one is grappling with the fact that we are defining Belgium as having been a colony.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from relister: it's not clear what to rename this to. Two of the three participants were fine with the "Belgian colonies" wording, the nom feels it's not clear whether these are talking about colonies of Belgium or Belgium as a colony. Two of the three participants were fine with using 'former' the other thought it was stilted. delldot∇.01:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: The idea that people might confuse this with "colonies in Belgium" is not very plausible, since Belgium was never colonized in a way that would be referred to normally as colonization (yes, there were successive waves of invaders all over Western Europe since antiquity, but no one refers to them as "colonists"). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.22:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a pervious incarnation of Belgium listed as a colony of Austria, so I di not think the idea is as far fetched as you think. Anyway wince half the contents of Category:Tennessee colonial people are Cherokees who in no way acknowledged British overlordship, it is clear that these categories are not meant to be limited to people who can be classed as "colonists".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:But were they former when the people were from them? In other words (speaking from ignorance) are we talking about people who were from the former colonies, formerly, when they were colonies, or people who were from the former colonies, when they were (latterly) former colonies? Because if it is the former we shouldn't say former, but if it is the latter we should. RichFarmbrough, 14:39, 8 January 2013 (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.
