Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 10



Category:Alternative propulsion training

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * alternative propulsion training


 * Nominator's rationale: Banned user Mac created this category and added a section on 18 community colleges in the US that they are National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium training centers. This 'main article' is a redirect to Clean Cities which has only an external link to indicate that the consortium exists. More seriously, community colleges by nature offer a wide array of programs. Were we to have a category for each program or faculty offered it would obviously lead to unworkable clutter. Delete and listify as a way to begin turn the redirect into an actual article on the consortium. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – this is as usual based on a misunderstanding of the category system. There is not much point in listifying unless a source can be found and an article written. Occuli (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that there is a source if one perseveres so a sourced list could be embedded in Clean Cities. Occuli (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, an improbable collection of nursing colleges an no MIT ... and a confusing name: what in the world this "alternative propulsion" means? bicycles? alien beams? comment: "made by Nopetro" is a de-facto ticket to hell ( there are fifty-eight actual card-carrying Communists in our Defense Department!), but I'd suggest not mentioning any names. He's gone, war is over, and anyone can still the history logs. East of Borschov 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Computer file name suffix

 * 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:Filename extensions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Computer file name suffix to Category:computer file name suffixes
 * Nominator's rationale: Plural, per convention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Computer file name extensions. It needs a capital C for computer; and they are normally referred to as extensions. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indifferent : singular or plural. Yes i know that they are commonly called "extensions". I find the term rather vague, therefore chose "suffix". I could be wrong, though, since, in grammar, a suffix is not separated from the word by a punctuation character, in which case "extension" may be more accurate. It's just that it seems so much like Unix/DOS lingo, but again, maybe that's just me. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Filename extensions to follow the article on this topic, filename extension. Computer is not needed unless there are some other types of filenames. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Music of Indonesia subdivisions

 * 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 invoking WP:SILENCE. —  ξ xplicit  01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Music of Indonesia subdivisions to Category:Music of Indonesia by province
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the other Indonesia-related subcategories. Pichpich (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Total

 * 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 . —  ξ xplicit  01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Total to Category:Total (company)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To avoid confusion and ambiguity. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename but to something else: You're right, this Cat I just created is way too vague.  (Sorry about that; I've been working on oil company cats for awhile and got tunnel vision.)  However, the main article on this conglomerate is Total S.A..  To keep everything consistent, how about renaming it Category:Total S.A. (no spaces betewen . and A)?  That would be clear to people interested in the oil company and rule out other companies named Total.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per RevelationDirect. "Total S.A." is a better suggestion, it matches categories like Lockheed Corporation. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Municipalities powered by 100% renewable energy

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Municipalities powered by 100% renewable energy to Category:Municipalities exclusively using renewable power for electricity
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name does not make it clear that we are talking about electricity here, at least for two of these. I'm not happy with the proposed name, so suggest away. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the problem with Samso and why you switched it to electricity only but we need to be careful: cities are typically electrically powered by plants far away. (It's the same concern I raised for that geothermally heated city cat, as I recall). Take Montreal: According to Hydro-Québec, a staggering 93% of my home province's power comes from renewable hydro power. The thermal plants are really used for grid balancing onlly and it's doubtful their power plays any notable role in powering my hometown. There are major cities across Canada and elsewhere that can make the same claim. Unless we're talking hamlets like Samso, municipalities of any import are generally not powered solely by plants within their boundaries, and modern day grids are a mix of power sources. Masdar City, "The world’s first zero-carbon city," does not yet exist. The Zero-carbon city is enough for now, until such time as these become more than a dream, if ever. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed name was selected to address many cities in Quebec. But you are probably right in that deletion may be the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shawn in Montreal. Beagel (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem if the outcome is delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:All-electric vehicles

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:All-electric vehicles to Category:Battery electric vehicles
 * Nominator's rationale: The three articles in this rightly neglected category by banned user Mac are all Battery electric vehicles. Another pointless duplicate category. Target category is much more precise as to their power source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Question. If merged as proposed, where would Category:Fuel cell vehicles go?  They are all electric without a battery, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply I would suggest simply adding Category:Electric vehicles as a master category in that case, and seeing if the community supports that classification. Maybe some people who are really into this stuff would not, since fuel cells can consume fossil fuels -- but then again, so does your local electric company (unless you live in my home province -- 93% of the time anyway). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * comment grid powered vehicles, such as third rail or overhead pantograph are all-electric and not battery powered... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. Okay, I'll WITHDRAW this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my withdrawal, per the comment below. How's that for decisiveness? Let's let this play out and see... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or turn into a parent category adding an introduction or a main article. This does need discussion.  Right now all-electric vehicle is a redirect to battery electric vehicle.  That leaves us with some question about what an all electric vehicle is.  Any nuclear powered vessel meets the bill since the heat is used to generate electricity.  Likewise for diesel train engines.  Keeping without an introduction or a main article is not the best solution here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant cat. The entire Electric vehicles category is a huge mess, incidentally. If electric vehicles other than "battery electric" are invented (who knows, maybe "supercapacitor electric"), then we can start creating analogous categories for them. The "All-electric" category is redundant. Vehicles powered by overhead lines can get their own category, if anyone is interested in bothering with it. Miracle Pen (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Cellulosic ethanol

 * 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 . —  ξ xplicit  01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Cellulosic ethanol
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per logic of CfM for Category:Cellulosic ethanol producers. Another WP:SMALLCAT from Mac/Nopetro. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Bioethanol which is what I think the intended target is. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Production plug-in hybrid vehicles

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Production plug-in hybrid vehicles to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Underutilized subcategory since most of the contents are already in the parent. Since it has been around for almost 3 years, I think the lack of use speaks for lack of a need for this. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Pointless and rightly neglected duplication of main category by newly discovered suspected sock of banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Australians of Macedonian descent
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Category:Australian people of Macedonian descent to follow the convention of Category:People of Macedonian descent. No prejudice against further subdivision or a more global nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Australians of Macedonian descent to Category:Australian people of Slav Macedonian descent
 * Nominator's rationale: hatnotes says listed are only those of Slav Macedonian descent, and, as such, not of Greek Macedonian - suggest a rename should be done for clarity of category purpose Mayumashu (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We don't have . Essentially, that is what is for, since it is a subcategory of, which is a subcategory of . Australian people of Greek Macedonian descent would go in . I don't think we don't need to subdivide any further in this way when we are dealing with descent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It s a matter of disambiguation more than subdivision, but, true enough, it needs to be by supracategories first or not at all - Category:Macedonian people should be Category:People from Macedonia (country) (and not Category:Slav Macedonian people) following Category:People from Georgia (country), wouldn t you say? (Category:People of Georgian descent is also ambiguous actually, not so much with the U.S. state but the reign of Kings George) Mayumashu (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * would probably do the trick nicely; I just don't see a pressing need for a category for people of non-ROM Macedonian descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that is just the thing and that we don t need a people by Greek Macedonian descent.  I don t think though we should have Category:People by Republic of Macedonia descent as "Slav Macedonia" was not always a republic (prior to 1944) - maybe the best that can be done is to keep  as named and depend on a hatnote for disambiguation  Mayumashu (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- not water topic -- Macedonia is both an independent Slavic country and a Greek province, where the Greek government refuses to admit that it has a Slavic minority. This difficulty is a result of the partition of an Ottoman province after one of the wars during the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  I thought we had a consenus on this issue, which did not involve accepting the Greek view that the name of the republic was actually Skopye.  we should stil, to that consensus position.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "not water topic" mean? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarify. I just think this should be renamed to, like the others in . Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:Ultraviolet
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose doing something with Category:Ultraviolet
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename, Split or something else. Another one from our favorite trio of editors. Ultraviolet is ambiguous which is why we have Ultraviolet (disambiguation). The question is how to deal with this.  I think a split may serve us the best, but I'm not sure how to do that.  The current subcategories don't really help me.  So any good ideas out there?  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm pretty sure this is the primary and dominant meaning (UV light in the EM spectrum), what with sunscreen, sunglasses, and clothing with UV ratings, blacklights in nightclubs, etc... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Ultraviolet (colour) ? 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? The article Ultraviolet is about the colour and is the dominant meaning. I can't see why the category should be any different, unless I've not seen some new way of doing things. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Category names should not be ambiguous so even if the main article is not disambiguated, the category may be. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems odd, but if that's common practice, so be it. I don't work with cats much on en.wiki. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I see no real ambiguity here. The category is about the form of electromagnetic radiation, which is the primary, original and most frequent meaning of ultraviolet, as well as the subject of the article ultraviolet. Spacepotato (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename – ultraviolet is an adjective and needs a noun. 'Ultraviolet light' or 'Ultraviolet radiation' would do. I agree that categories should have unambiguous names, regardless of the article name. Occuli (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally we renamed such as Category:Red (I would think 'red what?') in this cfd. Occuli (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * rename to Category:Ultraviolet light to match the first sentence of the category's main article Ultraviolet Hmains (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as not currently especially ambiguous. If it needs to be qualified, it should be Category:Ultraviolet radiation: Ultraviolet radiation is not properly “light”, and it has no “color”, according to the technical definitions of “light” and “color”. See here (search down for “ultraviolet”). –jacobolus (t) 01:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Any electromagnetic radiation may be called "light" (see definition 1b, light1, American Heritage Dictionary, 4e.)  This is the sense of the word used in ultraviolet light.  Spacepotato (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment UV is a colour and has been referred to as such, since many animals see UV as a colour in their photopigments of their photoreceptors in their eyes. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- It is not ambiguous: it refers to a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum beyond what we can see. All articles will inevitably be concerend with that part of the spectrum in some way.  What other meaning is there? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ultraviolet radiation per jacobolus. The current name is not acceptable for a category, per Occuli. And with the widespread use of HotCat, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it used for this person! As for "light" versus "radiation": while it may be acceptable in certain contexts to refer to "ultraviolet light", it is always correct to say "ultraviolet radiation". Also, the super-category is quite properly called Category:Electromagnetic radiation. Cgingold (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support rename to Category:Ultraviolet radiation per the discussion. I think the point is clear that a rename is needed for many reasons. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ultraviolet radiation per the above discussion; I do think it needs to be changed somehow, and this seems like a good solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.