Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 15

< October 14	October 16 >

October 15

Category:Science Fantasy (magazine)

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, with no prejudice against recreation if more articles appear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization as an eponymous category only populated with its eponymous article and an image that's only used on that article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created the category; I'm not an expert on categories and I seem to recall creating it by analogy with others I'd seen. I have no problem deleting it if this is over-categorization. There are probably some other similar categories that could be considered at the same time: Category:Startling Stories, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 16 October 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:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 7#Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute to Category:Possibly unfree files for deletion

Nominator's rationale: Current name is misleading as these files have sources. Another possible name could be Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright status — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent as creator. I'm guessing a template was feeding this category so I created it so the template wouldn't be filling an undefined void? Honestly I don't know - it's apparently been years, so whatever the outcome... cool with me. JPG-GR (talk) 07:16, 16 October 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:Books about diplomatic conferences

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Apparently inspired by the best-selling book Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War, this category still has just the one article, after two years. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT as the sole article is already in the parent Category:Non-fiction books about diplomacy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, ok interesting. anyone have any ideas for further ways to utilize this category? open to any ideas. thanks. I'm the category's creator. open to any decision arrived at here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be re-created if we ever have more to categorize in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 27 October 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:United States Navy vessels named after Presidents

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. A list can be created if desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy vessels named after Presidents to Category:United States Navy vessels named after Presidents of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Deambiguifying the name. While the meaning of the category's name as it currently exists seems obvious, I can see somebody going, "presidents of...? Corporations?", so clarifying it seems a logical thing to do. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the name of a ship is incidental rather than defining. Note that there is no attempt to create similar categories for RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 or SS Sir Walter Scott ('ships named after writers', 'ships named after alumni of the University of Edinburgh', 'ships named after people educated at the Royal High School, Edinburgh', 'ships named after people from Edinburgh', 'ships named after Scottish Episcopalians', 'ships named after people born in 1771'). Occuli (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then you can separate POTUS and other Prez on the same list in different sections. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli—this is incidental and not defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 27 October 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:United States Navy vessels named after foreign nationals

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. A list can be created if desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy vessels named after foreign nationals to Category:United States Navy vessels named after non-Americans

Nominator's rationale: "Foreign nationals" is a bit ambigious/Americentric. "after non-Americans" makes the purpose of the article a bit more clear, and also makes it more obvious that the naming of a ship after somebody who was not an American citizen is something very rarely done. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the name of a ship is incidental rather than defining. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then you can figure out what foreign national means, with different degrees of foreign-ness in different sections (naturalized citizen? landed immigrant? honorary citizen? ...) . 70.24.251.158 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli—this is incidental and not defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 27 October 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:Knowledge discovery in databases

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: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Knowledge discovery in databases to Category:Data mining

Nominator's rationale: The article Knowledge discovery in databases is a redirect to data mining. In general, "data mining" is the key step of the KDD process, and often used synonymous with KDD (albeit it is just as often used inflationary for any kind of data collection or analysis, too ...); anyway, the distinction between these two is hard to do consequently. There is a total of 8 pages (including the redirect to data mining) and the data mining category in the KDD category. So IMHO this is an obvious and easy merge. --Chire (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has been proposed before: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 1#Category:Knowledge discovery in databases ("no consensus") and on the talk page last year, again. --Chire (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the remaing articles, and either they were misplaced or already in the data mining category as well. Right now, it consists of the subcategory data mining, the main article is a redirect to data mining, and the odd article knowledge discovery that seems to overlap heavily with data mining (also discussing KDD) but also has merge tags with knowledge extraction and knowledge retrieval. This article is a mess, but linked from Template:Computable knowledge... Anyway, I'm for a merge since this category is already pretty much empty except for data mining. Thank you for your clean up efforts in this area! I've proposed to rename a category you just created, Category:Data mining software, see below. --93.104.79.59 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 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:1,4-diazepans

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misspelled (it's "diazepanes"), empty (I just re-categorised the only article that was listed here), de facto redundant with Category:Diazepanes (which only contains 1,4-diazepanes). ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as renamed (also would fall under speedy criteria C2A). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:22, 26 October 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:Ostvorpommern district

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category for former district, that merged in September 2011. Markussep ^Talk 09:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but slowly. You emptied the category out of process: when you have a category at CFD, do not remove all of its entries. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category contained two articles before I emptied it: Achterwasser and Usedom Island Nature Park. I've added them to the new Category:Vorpommern-Greifswald district now. So, let's delete Category:Ostvorpommern district. Markussep ^Talk 10:58, 25 October 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:The Beatles Capitol Records albums

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: Dual merge to Category:The Beatles albums and Category:Capitol Records albums. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, perWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Category:Albums_by_artist_and_record_label. Last nomination was recent and no consensus, but as I explicitly said at the linked CfD, it was a test case for this category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Over and beyond overcategorization. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not entirely clear why we are doing this one again so soon, as I thought maybe the previous discussion's result was because of a lack of consensus as to whether this one is like the others or a sui generis case. But ... as long as it's being discussed again, I would restate my position from the last discussion, that I don't think this is a necessary subdivision. If there are disputes as to whether certain types of records are normal albums or compilation albums, they can just go in both Category:The Beatles albums and Category:The Beatles compilation albums. In some circumstances, double categorization is more sensible than creating a specialized subcategory.Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (not delete, as this would leave the albums out of Category:The Beatles albums). This format was specifically voted down in theCategory:Albums by artist and record label debate. Despite being the greatest band of all time, there is no justification for Beatles exceptionalism in the category system. Kill it before it spreads.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge – as I said last time, fairly recently. Occuli (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per recent Cfd. There is a problem with classifying these albums as discussed previously and putting them in more than one category would just complicate the issue. A rename to Category:The Beatles North American albums or similar would be reasonasble. Most of the albums have been rereleased as The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 and The Capitol Albums, Volume 2, so the current name is consistent with that. Cjc13 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The recent discussion you refer to was not keep, but "kept as no concensus." Hence it being relisted. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely referring to the points I made in the previous discussion. The discussion was so recent it seems a waste of time to repeat the same arguments. To say this is a case of overcategorisation is to miss the points raised in the earlier discussion. These albums should go into some category relating to the Beatles. Cjc13 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well forgive me if I interpret "Keep as per recent CfD" as saying the previous discussion was an out and out "keep." As as for "These albums should go into some category relating to the Beatles" I concur, they should be inCategory:The Beatles albums and Category:Capitol Records albums, doesn't need this additional, trivial intersection. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a trivial intersection as has been proven in the last CfD. The point is that The Beatles have two main catalogues – their Parlophone catalogue in the UK (considered canon and categorised in Category:The Beatles albums) and their Capitol Records catalogue, which doesn't fit into any of the other existing categories.McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really was proven in the last discussion, because it ended with "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – There was no consensus to delete this category so the default position is to keep it. You can't immediately re-nominate it because you didn't like the outcome. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mclay, I actually do you see your point regarding the Beatles, even if I do not agree. The underlying problem with keeping this category is that EVERY artist would be entitled to (or at least think they are entitled to) create similar-named categories. Are you sure you want somebody to create album by band AND record labels for all artists? Are you sure there is value in any such category scheme? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would renaming the category somehow so it doesn't mention the record label solve the issue? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean renaming to "The Beatles North American albums" that's infinately worse, you could have Band X albums released in the USA, Band X albums released in Canada, right down to Band X albums released in Yemen. perish the thought. You can now see how non-defining this category is, though --Richhoncho (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that this is not ideal - Any other bright ideas in order to keep the "non-canon" albums as a sub-set? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None that I can think of that WP needs. However, I think I should point out the parent for this category has already been deleted so there is no reason why this category should continue to exist (as pointed out by the nominator). Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not think of any other artist which has separate articles for UK and Anerican releases, so I do not think the problem arises for other bands. Cjc13 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename. The US Albums should be a subset of Category:The Beatles albums, as they are not considered to be albums proper in the Beatles "canon". In fact, I notice that the Vee-jay albums are also shown under Category:The Beatles albums, so by renaming to Category:The Beatles North American albums as suggested above, we could include these also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to address the subject of "canon" here. Meet the Beatles! was the Beatles' first Gold album. It was number 1 on the U.S. Billboard charts for 11 weeks. It's #59 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. It soldfive million copies. And yet this definition of "canon" allegedly forces this album into some ghetto of "not real" albums, just because it was issued by a division of EMI that isn't the division of EMI in Great Britain. Yes, I know the Beatles got mad at Capitol. So did Frank Sinatra, and we don't rip his Capitol albums out of Category:Frank Sinatra albums. This argument is WP:CRUFT.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The following seems to illustrate the point. "With the release of The Beatles catalog on CD in 1987, releases were standardized on a worldwide basis and eventually the U.S. albums, which had last appeared on vinyl and cassette, were deleted." [1]The early American albums were only released on CD in 2004, as the UK releases were considered the standard version.Cjc13 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what? Again I say, five million copies of Meet the Beatles! exist. It's an album with the Beatles' name on the cover, issued by the Beatles' record company, and bought by millions of Beatles fans. It belongs in Category:The Beatles albums.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is in a subcategory of Category:The Beatles albums, so is there a problem? "Meet the Beatles" is largely a reworking of With the Beatles which was released 2 months earlier in the UK and other countries. All the Beatles records have sold well including compilations. Cjc13 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In my opinion, there is most assuredly a problem. I believe I've stated my opinion clearly, so will leave it at that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        To have a sub-category for these is only following the same reasoning as having a sub-category for, say, compilation albums (which, to some extent anyway, are what these are, rather than "studio albums"). Their parallel release is confusing if you are looking for a definitive list of Beatles albums. Would it ease your concerns if we had two separate sub-categories, each following the UK or US release canons? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No. A definitive list can be part of an article. For categorization purposes, these are all Beatles albums, and they should all be in one category. Again I say, they were not compilation albums at the time. Does the entry forRubber Soul need to be broken in half, one for an album released in Britain and one for a very slightly different "compilation" released in the U.S. in the same week? This is thin-slicing for cruft reasons. Put them back into one category where they belong, sez me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:The Beatles albums and Category:Capitol Records albums. This sets a bad precedent for others to possibly follow if kept and is an unnecessary intersection of label and artist. No need to complicate the categorization any further, but I wouldn't mind reading about the topic in an article.--Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can this set a precedence when there are no other examples of this issue? Cjc13 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there were other examples, then a precedent would have already been set. Let's not start one with this.--Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. How many artists don't intersect with a record label? And if you mean albums repackaged and released by on different labels for different territories, the list is endless - especially in the 60s. Then there's even albums repackaged and released on a different label in the same territory. None of which is a defining characteristic of any artist or album, even the Beatles. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unusual part is that both versions have articles. In other cases one article covers all the versions. The other point is that the category only includes those Beatles Albums not released in the UK, so for instance Revolver is not in this category even though a version was released by Capitol Records. This is why a rename of the category may be sensible. Cjc13 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well check out Category:The Rolling Stones albums then, exactly the same thing, different articles, repackaged, different labels. Fortunately those looking at those articles understand people will want to search for either the Rolling Stones album category, or the Category:Decca Records albums, Category:ABKCO Records albums or Category:London Records albums but not a combination thereof. And there are plenty of other examples. But they are all irrelevant. The underlying problem is that if this category remains then every band will able to create Band X Record Label albums. Totally meaningless, futile and pointless. Furthermore, the existance of this category diminishes the Beatles and if this is so important why wasn't Category:The Beatles Parlophone albums created when the Capitol category was created? 'Nuff said. Let it go. --Richhoncho(talk) 21:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Beatles Parlophone albums was created as Category:The Beatles studio albums so that all the albums were in subcategories but the category was upmerged after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 14#Category:The Beatles studio albums. The Rolling Stones is an interesting case but in that instance the early albums are not well known, so there is less of an issue. This is not the case of wanting to categorise albums by Band and Record label but to differentiate between original albums and albums which have been altered and renamed for a specific market. As regards searching for albums, I think most people use the templates such asTemplate:The Beatles albums to find the albums. Categories are less useful because they include less information. Hence I would suggest including the template in Category:The Beatles albums and if necessary renaming Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums to something like Category:US versions of early The Beatles studio albums so that it clear what the category contains. Cjc13 (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution If these are considered compilation albums, just put them in Category:The Beatles compilation albums. If not, upmerge them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if the albums were upmerged into Category:Capitol Records albums to avoid issues relating to overcategorisation but left as a subcategory of Category:The Beatles albums to reflect their ambiguous status within the Beatles albums? Template:The Beatles albums can be added to Category:The Beatles albums to aid navigation. Cjc13 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Please re-list this for discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_15#Category:The_Beatles_Capitol_Records_albums.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to follow this Looking at the various album articles, the impression I get is that there is a set of canonical EMI-released albums, and then there is a set of Canadian/American variant releases which happened to all be released by Capitol. SO I can see the desire for a separate category, but it seems to me that the category name is problematic. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a set of retroactively canonical albums. All of these were canonical at the time of release. See The_Beatles_discography#Albums.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or delete Same as [2]. No reason to keep it. Too much Beatlemania.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to "The Beattles" and "Capital Records" cats. There is no reason to categorise by the intersection of these two. It sets a very bad precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a simple matter of intersection. An upmerge to "Capital Records" would be reasonable. The problem is how to categorise these albums within the Beatles categories. Since the status of these albums is different in different countries, it seems reasonable to have a separate category. If the category is changed to something like Category:The Beatles' North American albums (see article The Beatles' North American releases) it could include original albums (as opposed to compilations) released by other labels in America such as Introducing... The Beatles. Cjc13 (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please close The !votes are 8 to delete, with only three to keep. This conversation has been going on for several weeks now and it seems apparent to me that the consensus of those involved is that this category and any larger scheme or precedent that it might set is bad. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please close. Irrespective of the votes (we are not a democracy!), the parent for this category has already been deleted, the argument to keep has been based on "the Beatles are special" with no answer to the question why can't every artist have Band X Record Label albums? NB It should actually be upmerge to Category:The Beatles albums and Category:Capitol Records albums as appropriate. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:49, 11 November 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:Living queens consort

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: merge to Category:Queens consort.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The only classification scheme for living persons is Category:Living people itself. (And also Category:Living performers of Christian music, for some reason--I guess that it's used to manage BLP concerns specifically for that WikiProject...?) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after ensuring that each is in at least one other 'consort' category. Occuli (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is also Category:Current heirs apparent, which implies that the persons are living. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 20 October 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:'Occupy' protests

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: Moved to Category:Occupy movement to match article, occupy movement, with the comment that a 4th move discussion is now underway for moving the article.. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:'Occupy' protests to Category:"Occupy" protests

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match (relatively) stable name of main article. Speedy was objected to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something else That doesn't use sarcasm quotes/scare quotes, or at least the appearance of them. How about Category:Protests inspired by Occupy Wall Street or Category:Occupy Wall Street-related protests? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See: Talk:"Occupy" protests#Requested move and the following talk section. Reliable news media prefer single quotes over double quotes when referring to the 'Occupy' protests. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing until the Move request closes. Whatever happens there will be the basis for what happens here, not the other way around.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created, in part, to affect the results of the move request. It should be moved back to the stable form of the article immediately, until the move request is settled. (The main article has been moved, again, to yet another clearly improper name.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose both titles suck. I propose Category:Occupy Wall Street movement. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should follow the <redacted> article, wherever it ends up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A practical note. The RFC bot tried to leave a notice at Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations. It got hung up at the double quotes. Click the redlink and you will see this: "A page with this title has previously been deleted. ... 18:29, 16 October 2011 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted 'Talk:List of' ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)." That was after I had removed the errant RFC notice and put a speedy tag on the page. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So report it to the bot maintainer. I can't honestly do it, because I don't know how you invoked the bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Scare quotes in titles. Single or double quotes. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 'Occupy' movement and 'Occupy' protests. Google News phrase searches for

Occupy protests - "About 2,210 results".
Occupy movement - "About 5,070 results".

The phrase search pulls up all versions with and without quotes. Some news media are still using single quotes around 'Occupy'. I did not see any using double quotes on the first page of search results. See discussion: Talk:"Occupy" protests#'Occupy' movement and 'Occupy' protests - --Timeshifter (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy movement. See Talk:"Occupy" protests#'Occupy' movement and 'Occupy' protests. It looks like the consensus is heading towards Occupy movement without any quotes due to the familiarity worldwide of the usage of 'Occupy' in this way. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the move at Talk:"Occupy" protests#Requested move 3 has consensus. Personally, I'm in favour of Renaming to Occupy movement, and I have indicated my reasons at that page. mt 21:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occupy movement. Both the article and category should be renamed to Occupy movement without quotes (also sometimes referred to as the Occupy Together movement) Justinform (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - move to "Occupy", its the most encyclopedic. - Haymaker (talk) 04:49, 24 October 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:Wikipedia protected edit requests

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests to Category:Protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests → Category:Semi-protected edit requests

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia protected edit requests as opposed to what? Wikisource protected edit requests? All edit requests that would appear in this category are Wikipedia protected edit requests, so the "Wikipedia" in the category name is unnecessary. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. Wikipedia:Category_names#Special_conventions states that the prefix "Wikipedia" should be added if there is the potential for confusion. The title lacks context without "Wikipedia", so it should stay. 124.149.86.241 (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming makes it look like a content category instead of a project work category. As protected edit requests could be related to some sort of government work... 70.24.251.158 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we need to make it abundantly clear that this is a maintenance category. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. And yes, even though all edit request made on English Wikipedia is a "Wikipedia" request, not Wikiquote, not meta, etc... We still need to clarify that this is a Wikipedia maintenance category and not the category for people to categorize the page to to ask for the edit request, using the word "Wikipedia" --G(x) (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend and G(x). Pretty standard practice for maintenance categories, last I knew (many of the older ones could do with renames, in my opinion). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 18 October 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.