Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 8



Category:Customs airports

 * 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) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * customs airports


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure that this is defining. While there is a main article, I'm not sure that it is notable itself.  Best I can gather is that this is a specific classification for airports in India.  We generally don't break out airports by the type of customs facilities that they operate.  Based on the articles, it clearly is not defining for the airports since they don't mention it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We don't even categorize airports for being international airports, and surely that is more defining than being a customs airport. There is no . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Another user created after I made the above comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment how is a customs airport different from an international airport ? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At least in theory, international airports are airports where passengers can arrive in one country after having departed from another. Customs airports are airports where goods (but not necessarily people) can arrive from another country and clear customs in the airport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2011 (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:Pickup terminology

 * 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 (category is now empty after sole article was deleted). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Pickup terminology to Category:Seduction community
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge I don't think there's sufficient material to warrant the isolation of the terminology in a separate category. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only contains one article, which is currently nominated for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2011 (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:Loves Opera

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Loves Opera to Category:Wikipedians who use Opera
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge I'm assuming that every user who thinks that Opera is "by far the best web browser" uses Opera. However, the distinction between users who love Opera and those who just prefer Opera is not significant enough to warrant separate user categories. Pichpich (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Loving a web browser isn't conducive to making an encyclopedia. Using one might be (e.g. someone can test whether or not something displays properly or discuss add-ons that are useful for editing and collaboration), but liking one definitely not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge no indication that it's a wikipedian category, or that this isn't about the fat woman singing at the end. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Opera browser per bits from all above. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2011 (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:Lists of shopping malls in India

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Lists of shopping malls in India
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Lists of shopping malls in India is redundant as there already exists a category Category:Shopping malls in India, which is older and has more appropriate title. Thanks.--   WorLD8115   ( TalK )   14:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is for now but one list, List of shopping malls in India.- choster (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as all of the above and nomCurb Chain (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2011 (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:Notable herds of American bison

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Notable herds of American bison to Category:Bison herds
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent category and main article are /Bison. "Notable" is redundant to include in a category name. I suggest just simplifying the entire name to "Bison herds". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. This really does seem like the ideal name, and "notable" is of course implied by being in this encyclopedia, to begin with. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename clearer shorter nameCurb Chain (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename as above. Neutralitytalk 19:59, 10 November 2011 (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:Melbourne cricketers

 * 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) 04:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Melbourne cricketers to Category:Melbourne Cricket Club cricketers
 * Nominator's rationale: This was suggested by Mattinbgn at a recent CfD and I agree with him. Simply "Melbourne cricketers" is ambiguous because it could easily be mistaken as "cricketers from Melbourne" and there are also two new teams called Melbourne, the Melbourne Renegades and the Melbourne Stars, which will soon begin to play and could add further confusion. Lastly, "cricketers" is necessary in the title (as opposed to just "players") because the Melbourne Cricket Club has a wide variety of sports under its banner. Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I attempted to notify the creator of this category,, but his talk page is (understandably) fully protected. Jenks24 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom; obviously need to disambiguate.  Harrias  talk 07:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Happy to support the nom, assuming the norm for these cats to be "Foo Cricket Club cricketers" - sounds to me a bit tautological, and I'd prefer "Foo Cricket Club players", which could also handily contrast with "Foo Cricket Club officials" (or whatever) but if that's existing consensus, so be it. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Hack pointed out at the previous CfD, it's not necessarily tautological because, quoting from our article, "As well as cricket, the MCC is also an umbrella organisation for other sports – golf, lacrosse, baseball, tennis, lawn bowls, real tennis, shooting, field hockey and squash." Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. And I really should have read the nom more carefully - you explained it there. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. What did happen to User:YellowMonkey? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The standard for the parent category is to use the club name without Cricket Club, so the current name is per the standard form. The new categories would be Category:Melbourne Renegades cricketers and Category:Melbourne Stars cricketers, which are sufficiently different. Cjc13 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there would continue to be confusion as to whether Melbourne Renegades cricketers were also Melbourne cricketers, as the latter would imply they were from a city, rather than a particular club, which is what we're trying to indicate. --Dweller (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no categories for cricketers from a city and if there were it would be "Cricketers from Melbourne" for the reasons you specify. Cjc13 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how is the casual reader to know that? To someone who has no knowledge of this particular category system, "Cricketers from Melbourne" and "Melbourne cricketers" could easily mean the same thing. Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current name is consistent with similar categories. Cjc13 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current name is useless, as it fails to accurately describe what it's supposed to describe. It's not a Category of cricketers who come from the city of Melbourne, which is what the "similar" Categories do. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the other categories in the parent category Category:Players in Australian club cricket by team and Category:Players in Australian domestic cricket by team. In each case the category is for players who have played for that club team or state team, not players from that state although they may well be from that state also. It is the same for Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team. Ian Botham in Category:Somerset cricketers and Category:Queensland cricketers played for Somerset and for Queensland but was not from Somerset or Queensland (he was in fact from Cheshire). Cjc13 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

<-Cjc makes a good point. When we see "Somerset cricketers", do we assume they played for Somerset or came from Somerset? I think this needs some further thought and discussion. The football analogy is Category:Footballers in England by club, for example: Category:Norwich City F.C. players‎. That is unambiguous. I think we should look at renaming the whole shebang of Cats into Category:Foo cricket club cricketers or Category:Foo cricket club players, pace the specific problem of "players" for Melbourne. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (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:Apartments in the United States

 * 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) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Apartments in the United States to Category:Apartment buildings in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that this the articles included here are mostly about buildings and not simple apartments. So the rename would better match the contents in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A side question here may be how this relates to Category:Residential skyscrapers‎. Aren't most apartment buildings skyscrapers?  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps where you live, but the overwhelming majority of apartment buildings I see are under 10 stories tall.- choster (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True, I was thinking the notable ones we have articles on. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even then, we have a number of articles on historic apartment buildings which are under 10 stories tall (for instance John Edmunds Apartment House, Roanoke Apartments, Bell Apartments, 310 West Church Street Apartments). Pichpich (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have written: This should not be done alone. This is only part of an entire category tree of Category:Apartments Hmains (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC) rename per nom and all the others also. Hmains (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * comment This should be done alone. This is only part of an entire category tree of Category:Apartments Hmains (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't see this affecting the parent category, just maybe some related categories like Category:Apartments in Sydney‎. If approved the subcategories of Category:Apartments in the United States will go to speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles included appear to be about individual apartments so everything should not be renamed without checking. Feel free to add categories that should be renamed to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Apartments in Sydney seems to be the only other one. Hmains (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a problem however; the main article is Apartments and its contents show that the article is correctly named. Maybe Category:Apartments and Category:Apartments in the United States are correctly named also Hmains (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While Category:Apartments may be correctly named, Category:Apartments in the United States is about buildings. Many apartment buildings are simply called apartments. But there are a few notable apartment articles around.  So for now start cleaning these up and see what's left.  Apartment does make clear that this can be an individual unit or a building, properly called an apartment building.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. Thanks for patience.  Hmains (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * English as a language has many flaws, especially the ones caused by those who speak it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * rename per nom as this category for the US only contains apartment buildings, not individual apartments. Hmains (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2011 (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.