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. Unnecessary eponymous category. 3 articles, all of which are easily linkable from one another. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion Now that you put it that way, I don't really care what happens to it. LazyBastardGuy 00:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify, I only made the category because I for some reason felt the need to compensate for removing the band's template (a TFD discussion on which is going on over here), and now I'm actually relieved it's not needed. But I don't care either way. LazyBastardGuy 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too few articles to justify a category at this time. Robofish (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2013 (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.
Support -- as it seems a more logical name. --Devin Murphy (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2013 (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: We only have around 200 serial killers. We don't need to divide by state. delete per WP:OCAT --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I hope we never need to divide by state. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikipedia:OCAT#Intersection_by_location, subdividing by state is warranted only when either (a) the geographic intersection is directly relevant to their notability, or (b) the national parent category is exceedingly large and needs to be diffused — and neither of those are applicable here. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into one US category; we do not need it split. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge states as nom I should have clarified this - the two state cats should obviously be merged to the parent, but the "by state" cat can simply be deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. There is no justification for subdividing this category by state. There has been consistent opposition to subdividing this category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (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. This is about the need to use 'the' and not the anything else. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "the Cape Colony" is the standard and most common usage. See for example the article on the British Cape Colony. - htonl (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Our general article on the subject is at Cape Colony. It does not use "the" before the title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. In common English usage, it always has been and probably always will be "the Cape Colony". The fact that the article is not The Cape Colony is merely a function of WP:THE—it's the same reason the articles are not at The United States, The Soviet Union, The Marshall Islands, The Netherlands, etc. (We drop the "The" unless (1) its inclusion changes the meaning, or (2) the word is always capitalized in running text.) Heck, the article Cape Colony even begins, "The Cape Colony was a European colony in what is now South Africa." The more fundamental question about these is whether they should exist at all or be converted into broader categories for "South Africa", but I think that's an issue that could wait for the conclusion of the related discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to :Category:#### establishments and Category:Establishments in the Cape Colony (including the 'the'), and Category:Establishments in Africa would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These categories actually exist because at some point it was decided that Category:1906 establishments should be split up and not have any direct articles. The problem is the by country schema was largely only adopted after it was realized some things would not fit in the by type system, and most stuff that is categorized by type is not categorized by country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it "decided that Category:1906 establishments should be split up and not have any direct articles"? And why could not a more general "XXXX establishments in Africa" accomplish that goal? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will oppose a general XXXX in Africa, unless we also have XXXX in Europe, XXXX in Asia and such. I will fight any treatment of Africa as not worth being split more than other continents, which would be the effect of creating such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to re-ask my first question which wasn't answered—where was it "decided that Category:1906 establishments should be split up and not have any direct articles"? Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was made as a result of actual application in fact. Most of this splitting up was initially done into by type categories. The creation of by country categories came about when it was realized that some things did not easily split to by type categories. Like many decisions about categorization it was never deliberated. However it is the de facto way things are done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. It's kind of like one of those consensuses of silence facilitated by a few editors who have decided what to do. If users knew that the alternative was a bunch of categories like Category:XXXX establishments in the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, it might affect what they think of "fully developing" the scheme. -Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:50, 19 June 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Previous consensus on these types of categories was that these "by country" categories should serve as parents to categories for albums recorded at notable venues within that country and not to categorize an album because it happened to be recorded in a certain country or city. The geographic location where an album was recorded in non-defining. See WP:CFD/2012 Nov 2, WP:CFD/2012 Mar 7 for similar discussions. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the majority of articles in the category have been recorded at notable venues in Slovenia, however they have not been adequately subcategorised yet. Therefore, instead of deletion I'd propose that subcategories for individual notable venues are created instead. --Eleassarmy talk 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does that, the category should be kept. If not, it can be recreated when someone does. Notable venues suggests that the venue has an article on English Wikipedia and the recording of the album there would be important enough to be mentioned in the article for the album with a reliable source. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there seems to be a structure for several countries (but not many), but is the country in which an album is recorded a meaningful distinction or basis on which to categorize - seems analogous to albums recorded on Monday or in June or whilst it's raining or while a Tory was PM or during a year when the National League won the MLB All Star Game... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expect people will add such sub-categories in the future, but the category is reasonable to keep as is. Superm401 - Talk 22:04, 10 July 2013 (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: Having been used in a particular race is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for a type of car (sort of WP:OC#PERF). If the articles in this category were about car types developed specifically for this race or about individual cars this category might be OK. This could be listified. DexDor (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many cars where only built for Racing in Le Mans; Bugattis in 1930-Years, Ferraris in the 1950-Years or Matras in the 1970-Years for Example. Greetings -- Erika39 (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to this merger: Erika is correct, there are quite a few cars that were built specifically for this race; in addition, I'd be very much loathed to include any prototype-class cars in the Sports racing cars category (although I don't actually know if this is the current procedure or not). I would personally support a "Endurance racing cars" category, or something similar: not all sports racing cars (or prototypes) are endurance racers; and not all endurance racers are sports racing cars or prototypes (an example: some of the cars built specifically for the Nurburgring 24 Hours are actually more like touring cars) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles in this category don't mention Le Mans in their lead and many (e.g. Fiat 508) don't mention it in the article at all (for the latter it would be legit to just remove them from the category). The members of this category are currently members of Category:Sports racing cars (per WP:SUBCAT). DexDor (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they need to mention Le Mans in the lead to be in this category? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Nor does requiring there to be X amount of articles mentioning the race in the lead for hte category to exist. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 21:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead to be in the category, but not being mentioned in the lead suggests it may not be a WP:DEFINING characteristic ("if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining"). DexDor (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really mean anything, to be honest. Given the shoddy state of some of the articles, and the fact that yet more others don't really mention any series in the lead, then I don't think this is a valid reason to remove the category. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 08:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are confusing Sports racing cars with Production sports racing cars or GTs. Prototypes are sports racing cars. Cras like Nurburgring 1000 cars or GT-Pro/GT-Am Le Mans classes are GTs. It is perhaps worth noting that the original designation of Sports cars in the 1920s was in actual fact for road going cars, much like what Touring Cars would be refered to in the 1960s and Production cars today. Sports cars evolved over time, much like Touring Cars today where DTMs and V8 Supercar have very little in common with road-going cars. --Falcadore (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are, but they have their own category, which I realized when I actually went to check (as I should've known already - I've written two articles on LMP cars!) I'm not confusing the two: I'm just objecting to having prototypes mixed in with "road-style" cars, for want of a better term. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 08:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As noted above, in the past many cars were purpose-built specifically for Le Mans; even today some are still 'bespoke' for the event, most notably the DeltaWing (although it has, since, competed in other events, it was originally specifically produced for Le Mans). And, as also noted, Prototype-class cars are very different from generic "sports racing cars". - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DeltaWing isn't the best example as it was built for IndyCars and adapted for Le Mans. Jaguar XJR-14 though is an example of a Sports Racing Car not built for Le Mans as it raced the World Sportscar championship but would be substituted by its team for the older Jaguar XJR-12 at Le Mans.
Oppose Le Mans dominates global sports car racing in a way few other motor races dominate their genre with the possible exception of the Indy 500 over Indycar racing and the Bathurst 1000 over V8 supercar and its predecessors. The four kilomtre long Mulsanne straight forced evolution of Sports Racing cars down a particular path with aerodynamics, engine characteristics and mechanical specification focussed on pure speed much more than for exmaple the point and squirt of Formula One where cornering speed and acceleration is much more important. --Falcadore (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (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.
