Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 3

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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Member states and observers of La Francophonie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This does not seem to be a sufficiently notable feature of the entities concerned. These are countries, and thus belong to many international organizations, most of which do not have their own categories.Kotniski (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider with similar categories - Delete unnecessary eponymous category; also overcategorization to categorize articles on entities by their relationships with other entities. --Lquilter (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is it eponymous? We have Category:G15 nations, Category:G8 nations, the dreaded Anglophone enemy Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations and many others. The interesting ones are those which don't speak French, like Greece. There is a template, but this seems less complete. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a category named for the organization. --Lquilter (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems to be relatively equivalent to the Commonwealth. Though perhaps a non-factor to many Americans and Britons and people in other mostly-English speaking countries, it is a significant organisation for the states that belong; even in Canada (which is only about <25% French-speaking) the org. gets significant press coverage. (I agree that the rename suggestion below made after my comment is a preferable solution to a straight keep.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't believe it is a significant organization for a country like Poland, which is the page I found it on. EU and NATO membership are vastly more significant for Poland than observer status in La Francophonie, yet only the last is currently reflected in its categories. Alternative proposal then, if this organization is significant for countries that belong: Rename to Category:Member states of La Francophonie, and exclude the observers. (I notice the Francophonie navbox appears on Poland's page anyway - this seems less egregious as it is among a larger number of other international-organizations navboxes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotniski (talk • contribs) 08:03, March 4, 2008

If it is not appropriate for Poland, then deleting it from Poland is the better choice than deleting the category. (That said, I would still delete the category.) --Lquilter (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Member states of La Francophonie to exclude the observers. Membership is certainly as significant as membership in the Commonwealth. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and I agree that we should implement a similar approach for both Commonwealth & Francophonie, so since I agree that it is unlikely that Commonwealth would be deleted then I'm happy to change my !vote above. ... But I observe that in general it is not clear what the bright line defining principles by which we determine whether some state membership in an organization is suitable for categorization or not. Subject -- trade, defense, intellectual property policy, coinage? Or functional? I certainly agree that when there is a governance structure then membership/participation is more significant than participation in many other governmental membership organizations. But there are lots of defense and trade pacts of which governments might belong, and bright lines between the different functions that such organizations do are blurring. Money? Trade policy? Enforcement actions? Maybe the era of internationalization is hard on wikipedia categories. --Lquilter (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete best handled with a template. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a template should also exist, but I don't see how that obviates the use of a category. Membership appears to be an important characteristic, as it is an important international organization. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 12:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changing "Youth Organizations in State" to "Youth organizations based in State"

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations in Alabama to Category:Youth organizations based in Alabama

changing "Youth Organizations of Washington, DC" to "Youth organizations based in Washington, D.C."

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Washington, DC to Category:Youth organizations based in Washington, D.C.

changing "Youth organizations of State" to "Youth organizations based in State"

Propose renaming Category:Youth organizations of Connecticut to Category:Youth organizations based in Connecticut

Propose renaming Category:Youth organizations of Florida to Category:Youth organizations based in Florida

Propose renaming Category:Youth organizations of North Carolina to Category:Youth organizations based in North Carolina

Propose renaming Category:Youth organizations of Ohio to Category:Youth organizations based in Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Youth organizations of Utah to Category:Youth organizations based in Utah

Propose renaming Category:Youth organizations of Vermont to Category:Youth organizations based in Vermont

Propose renaming Category:Youth organizations of Wisconsin to Category:Youth organizations based in Wisconsin

changing "Youth Organizations of State" to "Youth organizations based in State"

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Alaska to Category:Youth organizations based in Alaska

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Arizona to Category:Youth organizations based in Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Arkansas to Category:Youth organizations based in Arkansas

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Colorado to Category:Youth organizations based in Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Delaware to Category:Youth organizations based in Delaware

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Youth organizations based in Georgia (U.S. state)

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Hawaii to Category:Youth organizations based in Hawaii

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Idaho to Category:Youth organizations based in Idaho

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Illinois to Category:Youth organizations based in Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Indiana to Category:Youth organizations based in Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Iowa to Category:Youth organizations based in Iowa

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Kansas to Category:Youth organizations based in Kansas

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Kentucky to Category:Youth organizations based in Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Louisiana to Category:Youth organizations based in Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Maine to Category:Youth organizations based in Maine

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Maryland to Category:Youth organizations based in Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Massachusetts to Category:Youth organizations based in Massachusetts

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Michigan to Category:Youth organizations based in Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Minnesota to Category:Youth organizations based in Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Mississippi to Category:Youth organizations based in Mississippi

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Missouri to Category:Youth organizations based in Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Montana to Category:Youth organizations based in Montana

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Nebraska to Category:Youth organizations based in Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Nevada to Category:Youth organizations based in Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of New Hampshire to Category:Youth organizations based in New Hampshire

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of New Jersey to Category:Youth organizations based in New Jersey

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of New Mexico to Category:Youth organizations based in New Mexico

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of New York to Category:Youth organizations based in New York

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of North Dakota to Category:Youth organizations based in New Dakota

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Oklahoma to Category:Youth organizations based in Oklahoma

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Oregon to Category:Youth organizations based in Oregon

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Pennsylvania to Category:Youth organizations based in Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Rhode Island to Category:Youth organizations based in Rhode Island

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of South Carolina to Category:Youth organizations based in South Carolina

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of South Dakota to Category:Youth organizations based in South Dakota

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Tennessee to Category:Youth organizations based in Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Texas to Category:Youth organizations based in Texas

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Virginia to Category:Youth organizations based in Virginia

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Washington to Category:Youth organizations based in Washington

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of West Virginia to Category:Youth organizations based in West Virginia

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of Wyoming to Category:Youth organizations based in Wyoming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are five different naming conventions being used in Category:Youth organizations based in the United States. Propose to standardize on the format [[Category:Youth organizations based in Statename]]. This will fix capitalization issues in many categories; punctuation in Washington, D.C.; and standardize all in conformity with parent categories Category:Youth organizations based in the United States and the individual state categories in Category:Organizations based in the United States by state. Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree based in permits a single category, rather than adding 50 categories to nationwide organizations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Long Blondes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band; violates category guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in accordance with WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Normal links between the pages are good enough for finding all the information about the band, members and releases. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Is this band notable enough to warrant their own category? Mr. C.C. (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Put the members and songs into appropriate categories in the appropriate ...by artist structures. Otto4711 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rumiko Takahashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: either delete as unnecessary eponymous overcategorization or rename and re-parent in the Category:Works by artist category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename If that is the preferred format. Category:Manga artists is a more specific parent cat. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually if renamed to reflect that it's for works it should not be parented in a biography structure. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Manga by Rumiko Takahashi" and re-parent in Category:Manga by author (following the example of Category:Comics by author).--Nohansen (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is there aren't that many notable works [by her] on Wikipedia so the category may as well be placed in areas where she heavily relates to. See Category:Osamu Tezuka to get a better view of what I'm talking about. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that we don't categorize projects on the basis of the people involved in the projects. Otto4711 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 12:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Max Ernst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The material is extensively interlinked through text and doesn't warrant the eponymous category. Most of the contents is an inappropriate image gallery. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep mainly because needed for the images, which are non-free & can't go on commons. They could go to the paintings sub-cat, but he wrote a novel etc, so this time the category is justified. Navigation from his biog would not be easy. Johnbod (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As you say, the paintings images may be housed in the paintings subcat. There is no image of his novel so the existence of the novel does not serve as a justification for the category. The picture of the museum is from commons. That leaves a single image, the photo of the couple. I find it hard to believe that there are no other possible categories where this single image could be housed, mandating the category. If the painting images are located in the paintings category then navigating between them will not be an issue but it's likely that people interested in the paintings would navigate through the painting articles, which presumably have the individual painting images in them. Max Ernst has links to all of the paintings that have articles. Otto4711 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is in fact an image, which is not a painting, from the illustrations to the novel. There are of course other categories where the two non-painting images could go, but on Commons they would of course go in an eponymous category, and that is also the best solution here. I vote against most eponymous categories, but see no point in making a fetish of it. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Naturalized citizens by nations to Category:Naturalized citizens by nation

Nominator's rationale: spelling correction emerson7 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (I believe this could be speedied) --Lquilter (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (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: Like Johnbod and C J Cowie, I suspect there may be a baby or two in the bathwater, and Arthur Rubin seems to agree when he says "although a merge may be appropriate, it shouldn't really be necessary, and there's a reasonable debate about where to merge". However, there clearly is a consensus to do something, and that something can only be to delete these categories with the exception of those nominated on 2008-03-15. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Energy gearing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Energy transfer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Energy control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Energy insulators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Catch-all for loosely related categories involving different types of energy. At best, it should only contain subcategories. I think they should just be deleted, but I'd accept an argument for including Category Electrical Energy xxx, Category Kinetic Energy xxx, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That was an argument for subcategories, not a suggestion that it be done without a plausible argument. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related subcategories:

Category:Heat control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Electrical energy control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mechanical energy control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Heat transfer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mechanical energy transfer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Electrical energy gearing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mechanical energy gearing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm only nominating for deletion those categories in the list which were recently created, which is all except Category:Heat control. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transducer based power conversion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Adding new category replacing one of the old categories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electrical power control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mechanical power control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Electrical power conversion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Power control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Power conversion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mechanical power conversion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Adding yet more categories renaming categories considered for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and more, some of which I'm sure he's about to create. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Surely you should be suggesting a merge of some sort? Are all of these articles adequately categorised otherwise? It seems most unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  They're all newly created categories, so, although a merge may be appropriate, it shouldn't really be necessary, and there's a reasonable debate about where to merge. My detailed proposal would be to revert all edits by the category creator on those articles.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi!
• I have added descriptions to the categories in question. I do not deny that some of the categories could have a better name phrase, but I will try convey my thoughts of the categories.
  • The categories that ends with "gearing" encompasses articles about changing the impedance, phase or frequency. E.g. the electric: voltage to electric current ratio or the mechanical gear ratio. It might be the word "gearing" should be substituted for "converter" - or maybe "energy form converter"? - see Voltage converter and Torque converter
  • The categories that ends with "transfer" encompasses articles about transmission of energy - be it mechanical, electric or electromagnetic (e.g. radiation, waves in generel). Some of these categories might have changed "transfer" to "transmission".
    • category:Power transmission should be merged into category:Energy transfer.
  • The categories that ends with "control" encompasses articles about active management or control of energy, either politically or direct energy control.
• There is also some discussion here: User_talk:Glenn#Category:Energy_control.
• --Glenn (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "gearing" introduced here is confusing and can not exist without a proper explanation (the present ones are even too summary, imho). User:Glenn seems to acknowledge that: he shows he needs to add a descriptive introduction to these categories. He calls them: "descriptions to the categories". For example the introductory explanation in the:
Category:Energy gearing: The category energy gearing contains article about converting energy from one impedance, phase or frequency to another. But the energy form remain in the same domain and the focus is on energy conversion - not signal conversion or signal measurement (like Current-to-voltage converter or Voltage-to-current converter).
Also in Category:Electrical energy gearing, and in Category:Mechanical energy gearing.
It seems to me that the purpose of a category, collecting items of similar "value", is done away with. With an introductory explantion necessary these categories are now article lists with items that fit the title.
If the need is felt to create another category one might use other terms common in physics (e.g. "energy conversion", energy transmission", "energy transfer"?).
And make the present collection in the "...gearing" categories a list with a much better introduction/description. Remove these categories, please, even if such a list is not wanted or made.
--VanBurenen (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some group of these categories should be retained, but renamed. Although the term “power” is often used where “energy” is the appropriate term, I believe the opposite is the case in this instance. When energy is converted from one form to another, transmitted from one place to another, or “used” to do work or provide heat and light, the rate of energy conversion, the power, is often the central issue in controlling the process and selecting the equipment involved. The nominal size of generators, motors, engines, etc. is often stated in horsepower or watts. For that reason, the equipment is widely classified as electrical power generation equipment, electrical power transmission equipment, mechanical power transmission equipment, electrical power distribution equipment, power conversion equipment, electrical power control equipment, etc. Such equipment is not used to convert or transmit a specified amount of energy but to provide a continuous conversion or transmission at an appropriate rate.

Rename: Category:Energy gearing to Category: Power conversion

Merge: Category:Energy transfer to Category: Power transmission

Rename: Category:Energy control to Category: Power control

Delete: Category:Energy insulators

Related subcategories:

Rename: Category:Heat control to Category: Temperature control

Rename Category:Electrical energy control to Category: Electrical power control

Delete: Category:Mechanical energy control

Retain: Category:Heat transfer

Rename: Category:Mechanical energy transfer to Category: Mechanical Power transmission

Rename: Category:Electrical energy gearing to Category: Electrical power conversion

Merge: Category:Mechanical energy gearing to Category:Gears

C J Cowie (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Categories should not need great explanation to be useful. The term "electrical energy gearing" is particularly alien; I don't think I've seen that phrase outside Wikipedia."Heat control" and "energy transfer" are impossibly general and would include everything remotely related - too broad a catch-all is no help. ( Put the whole encyclopedia under Category:Stuff ?) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I have tried to find better words for the simple notions of energy/power:

• transfer ("handing over the energy")
• "generic gearing"; mechanical gearing, pneumatic gearing and electrical conversion
• control, control system - in the sense used in: Control theory: "...Consider an automobile's cruise control, which is a device designed to maintain a constant vehicle speed; the desired or reference speed, provided by the driver. The system in this case is the vehicle. The system output is the vehicle speed, and the control variable is the engine's throttle position which influences engine torque output...Although control systems of various types date back to antiquity, a more formal analysis of the field began with a dynamics analysis of the centrifugal governor, conducted by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1868 entitled On Governors...".

Source: http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

WordNet (r) 2.0 :
  conversion
       n 1: an event that results in a transformation [syn: transition,
             changeover]
...
       9: the act of changing from one use or function or purpose to
          another

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
  Converter \Con*vert"er\, n.
     1. One who converts; one who makes converts.
        [1913 Webster]

WordNet (r) 2.0 :
  convert
...
       v 1: change the nature, purpose, or function of something;
            "convert lead into gold"; "convert hotels into jails";
            "convert slaves to laborers"
       2: change from one system to another or to a new plan or
          policy; "We converted from 220 to 110 Volt" [syn: change
          over]
...
       11: change in nature, purpose, or function; especially undergo a
           chemical change; "The substance converts to an acid"

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :
  transfer
       n 1: the act of transporting something from one location to
            another [syn: transportation, transferral, conveyance]
...
       3: move from one place to another; "transfer the data";
          "transmit the news"; "transfer the patient to another
          hospital"
...
       7: send from one person or place to another; "transmit a
          message" [syn: transmit, transport, channel, channelize,
           channelise]
...
       9: transfer from one place or period to another; "The ancient
          Greek story was transplanted into Modern America" [syn: transpose,
           transplant]


From WordNet (r) 2.0 :  gearing
       n : wheelwork consisting of a connected set of rotating gears by
           which force is transmitted or motion or torque is
           changed; "the fool got his tie caught in the geartrain"
           [syn: gears, geartrain, power train, train]

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

  transmission
       n 1: the act of sending a message; causing a message to be
            transmitted [syn: transmittal, transmitting]
       2: communication by means of transmitted signals
...
       5: the gears that transmit power from an automobile engine via
          the driveshaft to the live axle [syn: transmission system]

As can be read - transmission seem to encompass transferring and/or gearing?
--Glenn (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow CJ Cowie's various suggestions above not my usual territory, but eg articles in Category:Heat control are clearly NOT adequately categorized elsewhere. The creator is not good at choosing names, but seems to have done some useful collecting and grouping of articles, which should not be lost. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Heat control is not one of his. I agree it should be renamed Category:Temperature control, although I did not nominate it for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's less than crystal clear. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think part of the problem here is that the categories are too diverse for most of us to comprehend. I'm torn between two options right now. One would be delete to just cleanup the mess and allow an appropriate subset of these to be recreated with a clearly defined inclusion criteria as needed. The other would be to close this discussion and put each of these up individually. Maybe the suggestions by C J Cowie could be the starting point for actions to be discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on my previous comments and comments by others. This will allow a clean slate if someone decides in the future to attempt some other type of organization. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Renamed some categories:
• Renamed: Category:Energy control to Category:Power control
• Renaming done earlier: Category:Heat control to Category:Temperature control
• Renamed: Category:Electrical energy control to Category:Electrical power control
• Renamed: Category:Mechanical energy control to Category:Mechanical power control
• Renamed: Category:Electrical energy gearing to Category:Electrical power conversion
• --Glenn (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2008 (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: rename. Kbdank71 12:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: 41 instances of ("the Gambia" to "The Gambia") or ("in Gambia" to "in The Gambia")

Nominator's rationale: To match The Gambia and Category:The Gambia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question; I agree that some sort of consistency should be established here, but do we know that the "The" is always capitalized, or is it in the examples you give simply because it's the first word in the title? I wonder because of other places in the world that can use "the" in the name, like "the Netherlands" or "the Congo", though the article/category names for these don't include the "the", of course. ... Good Ol�factory ^(talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If I'm not mistaken, "the Gambia" refers to a region and "The Gambia" refers to the country specifically: see here, for example. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. BF is right - the country's name is usually capitalised as The Gambia (my dad briefly worked in Bathurst) - "the Gambia" is the river. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, then. Thanks for clarifying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, seems the definite article is most usually capitalized for The Gambia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cowards and worrywarts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The inclusion criteria for the category are inherently subjective. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If we can have a Category for Hogwarts, what's wrong with a category for worrywarts? Cgingold (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the cowards portion of it is a recreation. Neither of these has an objective inclusion criterion possible. One person's "coward" is another's "prudent strategist." The pairing of these two characteristics is arbitrary. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent along the lines of other traits common in stock characters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per violation of WP:NPOV. How exactly can one be defined as a "coward" or "worrywart?" It's simply a matter of one's opinion whether or not a fictional character fits into one of those categories. So maybe Courage the Cowardly Dog and the Cowardly Lion may apply since "coward" is part of their names, but how can you go about saying that Scooby-Doo is necessarily a coward? –Dream out loud (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dream out loud. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:57, 9 March 2008 (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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Erotica by genre to Category:Erotica

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate level of categorisation; there is not enough material in either this or the parent category to necessitate a split. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom for now, although the category might be justified in the future. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (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: rename to Category:Pirated video games for clarity and per creator. no consensus on keep vs delete. Kbdank71 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pirate video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Catagory created soley to represent Chinese pirates and ROM hacks, which fail both verifiability and notability. Wiki22445 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There ARE notable ones though, even though most of them do fail verifiability and notability, it doesn't mean it automatically applies to them all. ViperSnake151 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ViperSnake151. Wiki22445, did you register just to nominate pirate game articles for deletion ? - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ViperSnake151.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete any allegedly infringing video game could be called pirate, and most non-pirated games have been pirated somewhere at sometime. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlossuarez46. Maybe there is some future for a category for officially released media that is not authorized by the copyright holder. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• At least rename to Category:Pirated video games so that games like Puzzle Pirates don't get put into here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this actually, it was an oversight on my part when I made the category.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2008 (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: delete for now with no prejudice against recreation if needed per discussion. Kbdank71 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surrealist games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was very poorly populated, containing only six games. Of those six, only two, time traveller's potlatch and exquisite corpse, were ever used by the Surrealists. The others are run-of-the-mill party games with no connection to Surrealism.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This category has been emptied, presumably improperly by the nominator. Please restore so we can see what we are supposed to be discussing. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct that the category should not have been emptied, but a glance at the nominator's contribution history reveals that the articles in question are: Mad Libs‎; Eat Poop You Cat‎; Exquisite corpse‎; Consequences;‎ Time Travelers' Potlatch;‎ What is Wrong With This Picture?‎. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies. I did not realize until after I had done so that I should not have emptied the category before making the nomination. It was not done maliciously. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice - There aren't a lot of surrealist games articles in Wikipedia right now, but if we get more than a handful of articles, this will be a useful category scheme in Category:Surrealism as well as in Category:Games (or whatever the hell that category is named nowadays). But based on RepublicanJacobite's description and Otto4711's research, it doesn't appear that the category is particularly needed once the inappropriate articles are cleared out. --Lquilter (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Penguins eating marshmallow hammers Delete for now, with no prejudice against re-creation later if there become a more sizeable number of articles. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the time come when it is decided recreation is justified (I find that hard to imagine, but that is beside the point), I suggest it be made a subcat of Category:Surrealist techniques, which is where Surrealist games is now located. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (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: merge. Kbdank71 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Current California State Senators to Category:California State Senators

Nominator's rationale: Another current category for political office-holders: inherently problematic due to difficulty of maintenance, better handled by a list. Also, I seem to remember that a similarly-named category was discussed and merged once before... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, politicians aren't divided by current and former status. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and ample precedent about "current" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (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: keep. Kbdank71 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav people to Category:Yugoslavian people

Also propose renaming subcategories:

Category:Yugoslav people by occupation to Category:Yugoslavian people by occupation

Category:Yugoslav military personnel to Category:Yugoslavian military personnel

Category:Yugoslav Sailors to Category:Yugoslavian sailors

Category:Yugoslav soldiers to Category:Yugoslavian soldiers

Category:Yugoslav musicians to Category:Yugoslavian musicians

Category:Yugoslav poets to Category:Yugoslavian poets

Category:Yugoslav sportspeople to Category:Yugoslavian sportspeople

Category:Yugoslav alpine skiers to Category:Yugoslavian alpine skiers

Category:Yugoslav athletes to Category:Yugoslavian athletes

Category:Yugoslav basketball players to Category:Yugoslavian basketball players

Category:Yugoslav boxers to Category:Yugoslavian boxers

Category:Yugoslav chess players to Category:Yugoslavian chess players

Category:Yugoslav gymnasts to Category:Yugoslavian gymnasts

Category:Yugoslav handball players to Category:Yugoslavian handball players

Category:Yugoslav ice hockey players to Category:Yugoslavian ice hockey players (merge)

Category:Yugoslav rowers to Category:Yugoslavian rowers

Category:Yugoslav sport shooters to Category:Yugoslavian sport shooters

Category:Yugoslav ski jumpers to Category:Yugoslavian ski jumpers

Category:Yugoslav swimmers to Category:Yugoslavian swimmers

Category:Yugoslav table tennis players to Category:Yugoslavian table tennis players

Category:Yugoslav volleyball players to Category:Yugoslavian volleyball players

Category:Yugoslav water polo players to Category:Yugoslavian water polo players

Category:Assassinated Yugoslav people to Category:Assassinated Yugoslavian people

Category:Yugoslav emigrants to Category:Yugoslavian emigrants

Category:Yugoslav immigrants to Canada to Category:Yugoslavian immigrants to Canada

Category:Yugoslav royalty to Category:Yugoslavian royalty

Category:Yugoslav princes to Category:Yugoslavian princes

Category:Yugoslav princesses to Category:Yugoslavian princesses

Category:Yugoslav queens consort to Category:Yugoslavian queens consort (nomination would reverse change made here)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. According to Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for former regions, "Yugoslav" is a demonym, and thus a noun. The correct adjectival form is "Yugoslavian". (For a non-former example, think "New Zealander" vs. "New Zealand".) I think keeping redirects from the names using "Yugoslav" would be helpful, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I honestly don't know for sure which term is correct -- however, I'm not persuaded (yet) that Yugoslavian is definitively preferable to Yugoslav. My impression has been that either is acceptable, so I decided to do a bit of Googling, which turned up the following results:
  • 3,290 English pages for "Yugoslavian people"
  • 24,000 English pages for "Yugoslav people"
  • 86 English pages for "Yugoslavian politicians".
  • 4,810 English pages for "Yugoslav politicians"
  • 157 English pages for "Yugoslavian writers"
  • 2,350 English pages for "Yugoslav writers"

Now I'm not suggesting that Google hits should dictate our decision, but these results certainly raise a serious question about the accuracy of the Wikipedia information relied on for these nominations. Neither the Template nor the complete List of adjectival forms of place names (which appears to have been the source for the template) has citations for their info, so I'm reluctant to consider them authoritative.

I have a funny feeling that we may not arrive at a definitive answer, but I've posted notice of this CFD at the talk pages for WikiProject Former Yugoslavia and WikiProject Europe, in hopes of getting some informed input from their members. PS - It's great to see that you've been making good use of {{cfd-notify}} to notify editors about CFDs, Good Ol’factory! Cgingold (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (nom): Thanks for your leg work; it is interesting. To my own ear, "Yugoslavian" intuitively sounds more correct, but of course others might differ on that point. I'd be more interested in getting consistency than in insisting that "Yugoslavian" be used in preference over "Yugoslav". Perhaps either are acceptable; even so, it seems that WP should choose one or the other to use in order to avoid confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I entirely agree that we need to settle on one term, and then perhaps leave redirects on all of the other categories so we avoid more duplicates like we have with "ice hockey players". Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Yugoslav" is the more usual adjective: e.g. Yugoslav dinar (250K ghits), not Yugoslavian dinar (a redirect) (8K ghits), etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. If better evidence can be provided that "Yugoslavian" is correct or more commonly used, I will support. Right now evidence suggests that "Yugoslav" is more common. Quale (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (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: rename to Category:Bus operators in England, keeping in line with the "former" category. No comment on the "bus operators" vs "bus operating comanies", but if the consensus is to rename it that way, which I don't see here, the nom should include the "former" category as well. Kbdank71 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Current bus operators in England to Category:Bus operators in England or Category:Bus operating companies in England

Nominator's rationale: This category has the same problems as any other "current" category: its membership is not stable and this makes maintenance inherently problematic. Moreover, since Category:Former bus operators in England already exists, this category does not add anything new. Any article that does not belong in the "former" category can automatically be assumed to belong to the "current" category, and vice versa. Thus, the category ought to be renamed to a more general title (either "bus operators in" as per the current title or "bus operating companies in" as per Category:Bus operating companies). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Whilst it makes sense in a way, i would say that maybe it should be kept as it is, especially if a new category is created, which i also think should happen, on future operators in the UK. If anything choice one but i would still say keep as is. Simply south (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the number of current to former must be at least 1:10 in real life, probably much more, therefore merging would make the cat useless if you are just looking for a current operator. This is a wiki, cat status doesn't have to be perfect, and is easily fixed by anyone who notices an operator is now defunct. This status is not exactly changing a lot, or often. MickMacNee (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not suggested merging the categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Bus operators in England and have a sub cat titled Category:Defunct bus operators in England. Lugnuts (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral as to the naming; but whatever it is named, this should be a sub-category of Category:Bus operating companies. Arguably Category:Bus companies in England would be more consistent with other existing country-based sub-categories. If the word 'current' is dropped, then the 'former' or 'defunct' category should become a sub-category of this one; if the word 'current' is to remain, then the two should be at the same level of the hierarchy. Quackdave (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and create a defunct cat for those no longer with us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and use Category:Bus operating companies in England based on the parent being Category:Bus operating companies. I have not seen anything in the discussion that would say Category:Bus operators in England is the preferred British usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2008 (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: delete. Kbdank71 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wireless local loop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only has one article that already has proper categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mr. C.C. (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (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.