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. 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]
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]
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 | Mclay108:59, 13 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 | Mclay108:56, 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]
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]
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]
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 sold five 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]
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 for Rubber 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]
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]
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:Polish irredentist and revolutionary organizations
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.
Support I agree with the proposed renaming, and would also support the suggestion to split the category, as independence groups might tend to be revolutionary and it took revolutions to achieve renewed Polish independence, but revolutionary groups persisted after independence. Comment "Irredentist" usually refers to existing states seeking to regain putatively lost territory (and it is not at term in ordinary use by most native English speakers btw). In the period when Poland was completely divided among Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary, I suppose independence organizations were tautologically irredentist in some sense, but independence clearly captures the aim better. But were there any irredentist organizations in the usual sense after Poland regained independence, and does that matter? E.g. Were there groups that wanted to regain Danzig/Gdansk in the interwar years, or parts of then-German territory that were annexed to Poland after World War II? Likewise, since the end of the Soviet Bloc, were/are there groups that want to regain parts of former eastern Poland that were annexed to the USSR? Even if there were, maybe they just should be excluded from the category. Chris Lowe (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also agree with Chris that the category should be split. Support, because there doesn't seem to be a single "irredentist" organization in the category, though there are some "independence movement" types. And split because, yeah, if you look at the category and don't have the prior knowledge of these organizations, then you can't tell the "revolutionary" ones apart from the "independence" ones. An example of the first would be the old, pre war, Communist Party of Poland (rev but not int), an example of the second would be the National League (Poland) (not rev but int). Obviously I don't think both of these belong in the same category, both colloquially and literally speaking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 8 September 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.
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:Delete. People of North Korean origin (e.g. North Korean defectors) who reside in South Korea are considered by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea to be South Korean citizens, not expatriates. North Koreans in Japan (like the single member of this category, An Yong-Hak) who wish to move to South Korea must register (not "naturalize") as South Korean citizens through the consulate and obtain South Korean passports; they cannot travel to nor reside in South Korea as "North Korean expatriates". cab (call) 16:13, 8 September 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.
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 I understand the arguments and accept them. However from the contents of the categories it is evident that many people are not aware of this 'people'/'phenomenon' distinction. The category pages must clearly state this. Please, someone who is good with ropes in wikipedia, write the corresponding headers. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:07, 8 September 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:People from Saint Helena Parish, Louisiana
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.
Retain as is. Wherever reasonable, get abbreviations out of article titles and categories. "St." is also the abbreviation for "Street" and other words. Change the article title to "Saint Helena Parish, Louisiana." Do the same for all the other "saint" parishes in Louisiana. Good scholarship depends on exactitude, which an abbreviation isn't. Rammer (talk) 17:06, 8 September 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.
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:procedural keep and repopulate. I haven't heard any objections (other than from the nominator) for this clear violation of CfD procedure. I'm putting it all back, and then the nominator can renominate the full categories for renaming, deleting, or splitting as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I emptied the category because it was being misused. Most entries were not, in fact, rollerskaters, but inline skaters, a different thing entirely. Rollerskate wheels form a rectangle and inline skate wheels are in a line. Almost all uses were incorrect. Cosprings (talk) 23:25, 11 September 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.
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: Per main article. I don't know Arabic and I'm not familiar with its transliteration, but it seems like these are just two schemes that have been randomly used on en.wp and should be standardized in article and category namespaces. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 8 September 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.
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. Undo recent rename as recent CfD closed prematurely. It seems inappropriate to use a disambiguator. It's all about "RoboCop" whether we're talking about the film, character, francise, video games, whatever - the disambiguator is not needed here. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, there are several such categories, so there is a significant consensus to keep or renamed similarly-titled collections of articles. Furthermore, "RoboCop" refers to the first film, the character himself, and the larger media franchise. If the article at RoboCop is about the film and the category is also named Category:RoboCop, that implies that the contents are all directly related to that first film itself, rather than being about the general media franchise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but as the franchise spun off from the initial film, then ultimately everything in the franchise is directly related to the initial film. In this case the disambiguator seems unnecessary as the disambiguator in the article titles is only to disambiguate between other articles within the RoboCop franchise, not from outside of this sphere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since we are not disambiguating this category from any other. I do not get the impression that simplifying the category name (especially per WP:PRECISION) will confuse readers. It seems to me to be a high-level category, like Star Wars or X-Men. Although the RoboCop category needs the two sequels in it! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 11:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename. Disambiguation does not work quite the same way in categories as it normally does with articles. In categories, we typically match the name of the category to the main article, even if we are not disambiguating from any other category of the same name. RoboCop is about the film; RoboCop (character) is about the character; RoboCop (franchise) is about the entire gamut of the franchise. Since this category is about the entire franchise, it should match the name of the article about the franchise, which is RoboCop (franchise). This seems to be a case of misunderstanding this principle more than anything else. (Also, the category has not been tagged for renaming.) Good Ol’factory(talk)22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the guidelines for disambiguating categories? I looked for them but did not find any. I see no reason why the category "RoboCop" should be assumed to be the first film. It is a category, so it will be all things RoboCop (including the sub-categories). In addition, articles follow the disambiguation system based on what readers are most likely to look for. Categories are not based on that. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such as they are, I don't believe they have been formalized. What I said was based more on precedent and speedy crition C2D than anything. I think by implication, the speedy criterion supports what I said. It would probably be a good idea to create some guidelines, but these issues of treating categories differently are always such a headache for all involved. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misrepresenting the intention of the speedy crition C2D, which doesn't mention disambiguation. Yes, categories should match the article, and calling this category "RoboCop" would match the article title, only without the disambiguator. Bear in mind that EVERY article called "RoboCop" and related disambiguators would be included under this category. Whilst disambiguation would be appropriate for subcategories (for example Category:RoboCop (video games), etc.) or if there were different topics with the same name, we're talking about a top-level category here. And if you're talking precedent, see Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street, Category:Rambo, Category:The Fast and the Furious, Category:Back to the Future, Category:Hellraiser, Category:Dirty Harry etc, etc. In fact, with only a couple of exceptions, and obvious exceptions where disambiguations are required because of conflicts outside the sphere of the film franchise (Willow, Scarface, etc.), trhe majority of franchises do not have disambiguators. See Category:Categories named after films for more examples. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way consensus has played out on these types of categories when discussed, as the first commenter noted—so no, I don't think I'm misinterpreting it in the context of what has gone before. I don't believe the categories you mention have ever been discussed, so their existence is of little utility, since anyone can create a category named anything, and it takes a nomination to change it. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first commenter stated "there are several such categories, so there is a significant consensus to keep or renamed similarly-titled collections of articles". Now, as per my examples above, it would appear that consensus is not to disambiguate in these cases. Would be interested to see some examples of consensus for disambiguation on these film-franchise categories. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to express above, I don't think the mere existence of a category necessarily proves any sort of consensus, since anyone can create a category named anything. Typically, the only time consensus decisions are really reached on such things is when they are discussed at CFD. There are instances of discussions here, here, here, here, here, here. These are by no means all of them, just the ones that I could remember off the top of my head. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But all the examples you give are where disambiguation is necessary because the word could mean something outside of the sphere of the film franchise. "Alien" could mean something else, as could "Saw", "Tremors", etc, etc. This is not the case with "RoboCop" - any article in this category would be related to the film franchise. Until something else called "RoboCop" comes along, "RoboCop" has no need to be disambiguated, and is a suitable primary top-level category name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it can, but all of these are directly connected with the film series/franchise and the high-level category that until recently was called, simply, "RoboCop". No need to disambiguate, as anything else would be a sub-category of this one (video games, etc). The only need to disambiguate would be if something else called "RoboCop" came along that was unrelated to all of these articles. Only then would the disambiguator would be necessary, as you may then need categories for RoboCop the film franchise, and, say, RoboCop the catfood brand. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the normal principles of categorization mean that naming to Category:RoboCop suggests that it should correspond in topic exactly to the article named RoboCop, which it doesn't. It corresponds in meaning to the article named RoboCop (franchise). I realize you disagree with this approach, but it is the usual one for categories, whether for film franchises or otherwise. If we want to make special exceptions for film franchises, we could, but I don't see much of a point for treating them differently. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline states "normally", but there don't seem to be any guidelines on how to deal with disambiguation. It seems reasonable in cases like these, where all articles in question relate to the same topic that exception can be made to this "normally", as disambiguation seems completely unnecessary. I'm going to pop something on the category talk page to see if we can get some further opinions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - whether it be an article on the character, a film in the series or anything else, it's all something robocop-y. Agree with original nominator. Coolug (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I think GOF is overstating the reach of the categorization principle. The category contains all things RoboCoppy, which draws from the eponymous film and the sequels. Compare Category:Star Trek and Category:Star Wars, which do not have the "(franchise)" tag, yet are about properties expanded far beyond the initial expressions they were named after.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:08, 6 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:Victims of the 2011 Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash
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.
Hold off There will shortly be a discussion on the talk page of the article concerned as to the name of the article. The article itself doesn't comply with naming conventions, so there will likely be a change to that article as well. --RussaviaLet's dialogue09:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft is ambiguous and plane crash is not. Plane might be a problem but plane crash is not as it is very specific. Aircraft can be any number of vehicles that are not a plane. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 9 September 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.
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:Host cities of the IAAF World Athletics Championships
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.
Not even close to the same caliber, I wouldn't think. Well, maybe kind of close—but the Olympics clearly has the advantage in terms of prestige and in terms of time-frame—the IAAF Athletics Championships has only been around since the 1980s. Is having been an IAAF host city defining for Edmonton? Not really, I don't think. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, but it's not mentioned in the (quite lengthy) lead of the article Edmonton and is not mentioned until well into the subsection in the article on sports and recreation. If it's defining, the article sure doesn't reflect that. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is because the lead article is just a summary and not all information in an article belongs in the lead. Something like this belongs in the sports section of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not important enough to be in the lead, it's very difficult to argue that it's defining and thus appropriate for a category. The more I read about Edmonton and the other cities that have hosted this, the more I'm convinced this is not defining at all. It's just one event among many that the cities have hosted, and thus squarely within WP:OC#VENUES. No one here has explained why the default guideline should not apply in this case. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:41, 11 September 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.
