Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14[edit]

Category:Whitewater rivers of North America[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Whitewater rivers of North America, rename Category:Whitewater Canoeing venues to Category:Whitewater canoeing venues for capitalization. Kbdank71 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Discuss - Recently this CFD for fly fishing waters resulted in delete, under the theory that categorizing waters on the basis of activities that could take place on or near them is overcategorization. It's been suggested that this category is similarly overcategorization. I suppose it is, but I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the subject. If the canoeing category is kept it should be renamed to reflect proper capititalization. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Whitewater rivers of North America and Rename Category:Whitewater Canoeing venues to Category:Whitewater canoing venues. Clearly the first is very similar to the fly fishing category. This would be better served by a list in the article. How much of the river needs to have whitewater to be notable? Is having 5 class 1 rapids more notable then having 1 class 5 rapid? All of those issues can be much better documented and sourced in a list in the article. Some of this is in the article, but not everything. The second appears to address actual facilities and so should be kept like any other sports venue. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Listify - the rationale for listifying a similar category ought to apply to this one unless one consensus has no bearing on another!! Renaming solves nothing!!--Mike Cline (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian - Darwinek (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Category:Whitewater rivers of North America. Reading the relevant articles, one can see that a Whitewater River is a whitewater river regardless of what human use is made of it. It is an important physical characteristic of the river itself and should be categorized accordingly. The classification scheme mentioned is relevant to the use of the river, but not relevant to the physical river. No opinion on the other category Hmains (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the category is characterized as Rivers in North America with whitewater rafting, kayaking or canoeing., so if I added the Lamar River, Slough Creek or the Gardner River to the list they would not meet those characteristics because any form of boating is not legal on those waters. Yet, each of those waters--the Lamar, Slough and Gardner Rivers clearly meet the characteristics of Whitewater as defined in WP. Your position is essentially inconsistent with the current characteristics of the category and the logic of your argument. Using your logic and the definition of Whitewater in WP, essentially every river on the planet short of spring creeks that popup out of nowwhere and flow to their demise over an extremely shallow gradient is a whitewater river in some section of its length.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

easily fixed. Just edit the category and change its stated purpose. As I just did. Now it can and should include any whitewater river in North America. Of course, the river article itself must say it is a whitewater river. Hmains (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmains - I trust you are joking. As I said before every river in the world with any sort of gradient has Whitewater that meets the definition in the 1st paragraph of the Whitewater article. Putting the following sentence in every river article this river has whitewater in its headwaters and elsewhere in its flow seems a little silly. If one carefully reads the entire Whitewater article one can see that it is 75% about Whitewater activities, not whitewater the physical characteristic. The guise you seek is to shield the idea of Whitewater boating as an activity by characterizing whitewater as a physical thing, yet at the same time demand that for inclusion, the article must refer to whitewater as an activity.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:54, 18 July 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.

Category:Unfinished episodes[edit]

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 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Unfinished television episodes to clarify what sort of episodes it refers to. Cgingold (talk) 22:04, 14 July 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.

Category:Huey Lewis and the News songs[edit]

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 per article change. Kbdank71 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Huey Lewis and the News songs to Category:Huey Lewis & The News songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per WP:Songs#Categories, For consistency, the artist name in "Category:<Artist name> songs" should be the same as the name in the title of the article, in this case Huey Lewis & The News. 63.170.82.103 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse nomination. The category is named in the way the band's article should be named. Keep the category as is and move the article to match it. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I favor that (and questioned why months back on the main article's talk page), but it's going to take a lot more work. It's not just a simple redirect. Wolfer68 (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators (I'm one) are magic, didn't you know? (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can you perform your magic? Leave the category the same and change the name of the article. There's no formal discussion needed to do that, is there? --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 16 July 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.

Category:Kunsthistorisches Museum[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Collections of the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Kbdank71 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kunsthistorisches Museum to Category:Paintings of the Kunsthistorisches Museum

Nomination amended by me to remove typo in museum name. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~ Merge.(see below) This is a duplicate with Category:Collections of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, but as not all items are paintings, a subcat is needed to go in Category:Paintings by collection, following the standard structure (eg in Category:Collections of the Louvre). If approved I will sort the articles & parents out. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tag on category now removed twice by category creator Gryffindor - amazingly an admin. Can one of his colleagues have a word? Johnbod (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Collections of the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Neither category is large enough to require separate categories yet. If they become large enough, we can have separate categories for Paintings, Sculptures, etc. but I would suggest that even then any "other articles" are retained in the parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There are currently 11 paintings & 4 other objects - I'm sure the articles already exist to double both. By doing this Category:Paintings by collection cannot be used. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now 17 paintings and 12 other objects, so I trust this objection no longer applies. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator has now set up the new paintings cat, so the head cat is not needed - there are no articles on staff etc. Merge to Category:Collections of the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Nom amended above. Johnbod (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See Category:Louvre, which follows same pattern. Gryffindor 09:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has a total of 23 articles not about the collections - here there isa just the main. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 15 July 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.

Category:SFIO[edit]

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 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFIO to Category:French Section of the Workers' International

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article name. Tim! (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I generally support using the full names rather than abbreviations, but in this case the abbreviation is far more known and the full name becomes quite long and awkward. --Soman (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – SFIO is not in general use (unlike say NATO). Perhaps keep a category redirect at SFIO to match the article redirect. Occuli (talk) 20:52, 14 July 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.

Category:Bateman's 'Great Landowners' (1883)[edit]

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 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Possible speedy candidate as a recreation of 'Great Landowners' deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_25#Category:.27Great_Landowners.27 Tim! (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy - the introductory text appears to be an exact duplictae in content and layout as the original deleted category. If speedy is rejected, Delete as categorization by triviality. Mention in some book that draws its text from some other book because one happened to possess a certain amount of property on a particular day is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now listified as Bateman's 'Great Landowners' (1883). Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not agree that appearance in this work is a trivial: these were the great British landowners of their day, and thus among the richest men in Britain, surely a notable characteristic. This was in a period when riches were usually invested in land. Persons so categorised should only appear, becasue they were notable for other reasons. The problem with the category is that it needs populating. I do not have a copy, but am certain there must be many more than six people who should appear. No doubt the selection of one date is in a sense trivial, but that is the date for which there is evidence. The work depends on a government survey of landownership in the 1870s, which revealed that ownership was even more concentrated in a few hands than any one had hitherto imagined. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the previous CFD (why this wasn't speedied is a mystery to me), we wouldn't have Category:Forbes 500 richest people and this is the equivalent. That it's separated by a few centuries doesn't make this any more defining. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 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.

Category:Bangla calendar[edit]

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:Months of the Bengali calendar. Kbdank71 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bangla calendar to Category:Bengali calendar or Category:Months of the Bengali calendar

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match lead article Bengali calendar. Otto4711 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The months should have a "months of..." subcat like others in Category:Months. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the contents are pretty much the months. If a rename to Category:Months of the Bengali calendar is desired I'm fine with it. There's also Category:Islamic calendar but I haven't explored it yet. Otto4711 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the main, template & Panjika (the almanack) they all are the 12 months, so a rename to Category:Months of the Bengali calendar might be best, with the other as a see also. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 14 July 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.

Category:Windows-only games by year and sub-cats[edit]

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: The same reasoning that led to the deletion of the 2001 variation of this category MrMarmite (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have consolidated this into one section for reasons which should be obvious. Also I added a link to the previous CFD. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Thanks for that, I was not sure how to do it MrMarmite (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this scheme becomes visible as blatant over-categorization when you consider the very nearly note-for-note comparability to Category:1979 births of English-only speaking sportspeople or somesuch. We can categorize software by year of release, by genre, and by operating system(s). Availability in only one OS can be deduced from the lack of other OS categories. Moreover there is no reason for some year-categories to be kept and others to be deleted. Delete (all, obviously). — CharlotteWebb 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all to Category:Windows-only games (subcat of Category:Only-platform software). Occuli (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:Windows_games as Category:Windows-only games has already been deleted. MrMarmite (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a very bizarre consensus to delete Category:Windows-only games (with no articles) and leave Category:Windows-only games by year; and not to address any of the other subcats in Category:Only-platform software ... is this some anti-Windows POV? Occuli (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nothing anti-Windows. At the time of the first {cfd} I asked for an idea on how to list all the years as well. MrMarmite (talk) 23:57, 15 July 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.

Category:Indian podcasters[edit]

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 (keep). I think Kbdank71 raises a good point. I hope there can be more discussion about breaking down everything by nationality, especially, when nationality is not necessarily relevant to the profession. Politicians by nationality makes inherent sense. Philatelists does not (and there was a CFD that rejected the subcategorization of this profession for that very reason). Sorry to see this wasn't discussed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one page classified as such and as such there is no complexity or quantity of content in this category that requires categorisation under the head ChiragPatnaik (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While it's true that very small categories are generally discouraged, an exception to that general rule is the case of categories that are broken down by nationality, like this one. Cgingold (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, no one has heard of her in India. I have recommended her page as CSD as well. lets see what the author has to say about that. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks OK to me. Occuli (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of the small but accepted Podcasters by nationality structure. Nominator's claim that no one's heard of her seems unsupported by the existence of multiple references in the article. I note that the speedy has been declined. If the nominator wants to AFD the article and should the article be deleted, then this category can be deleted as empty. Otto4711 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but just for arguments sake, I can think of a couple of dozen people like her for whom pages can be created... Anyway... <shrug> Just a waste of space on Wikipedia. Hardly matters. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Podcasters. 5 subcats of Category:Podcasters by nationality does not a scheme make. --Kbdank71 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. It's a small scheme, but a scheme nonetheless. It's not like other accepted schemes burst forth fully formed, as Athena from the brow of Zeus. Otto4711 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that argument, you could say that two subcats with one article each make a scheme. This whole "keep by scheme" argument undercuts the reason for categories. There comes a point when we should be able to say Yes, upmerging is fine, and one subcat of five that only has one article in it is the point. --Kbdank71 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto as part of podcaster by nationality scheme. Breaking down a category in order to link people into the meta-"people by nationality" scheme is usually a good idea, or at least OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and because the category is likely to be populated in the not-too-distant future. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:54, 23 July 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.

Category:Indian-Germans[edit]

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 per extensive precedent. Kbdank71 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian-Germans to Category:Germans of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: was skipped over in previous nomination; as per recent precedent Mayumashu (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep. Although the Booian-Foobian scheme is vague in terms of the people it includes, it is a better alternative to the proposed scheme. "Descent" means one thing and one thing only - anyone with any ancestor. The use of this term will (because some people around here know english) lead to the inclusion of anyone with any Indian ancestor even if the ancestor goes back 500 years. Thus, the proposed scheme leads to an undefining categorization.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:03, 19 July 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.

Categories:Filipinos of Fooian descent[edit]

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 per precedent. Kbdank71 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/upmerging

Category:Puerto Rican-Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Puerto Rican descent
Category:Australian Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Australian descent
Category:Austrian Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Austrian descent
Category:Canadian Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Canadian descent
Category:Colombian Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Colombian descent
Category:German Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of German descent
Category:Indian Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Indian descent
Category:Italian Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Italian descent
Category:Korean Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Korean descent
Category:Lebanese Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Arab descent ** empty except for a single link to an article on Arab settlement in the Philippines
Category:Mexican Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Mexican descent
Category:Nepalese Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of South Asian descent ** empty except for a single link to an article on South Asian settlement in the Philippines
Category:Pakistani Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of South Asian descent ** empty except for a single link to an article on South Asian settlement in the Philippines
Category:Polish Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Polish descent
Category:Tongan Filipinos to Category:Filipinos of Tongan descent

Nominator's rationale: as per copious recent precedent Mayumashu (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom (per much precedent), except articles with a single category, which should be upmerged (without prejudice to re-creation, if they can be populated). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep all. Although the Booian-Chileans scheme is vague in terms of the people it includes, it is a better alternative to the proposed scheme. "Descent" means one thing and one thing only - anyone with any ancestor. The use of this term will (because some people around here know english) lead to the inclusion of anyone with any ancestor even if the ancestor goes back 500 years. Thus, the proposed scheme leads to an undefining categorization.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 11:00, 19 July 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.

Sub-cats of Category:Transposing instruments[edit]

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 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Ab instruments to Category:A-flat instruments

Category:Bb instruments to Category:B-flat instruments

Category:Eb instruments to Category:E-flat instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per consensus reached at Category talk:Transposing instruments and guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). Dbolton (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-factored. In the future please put related CFDs under the same section header to ensure consistent results and avoid duplicating the same arguments and counter-arguments. — CharlotteWebb 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just keep the cat redirects at all of them. Badagnani (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, do no D-flat or G-flat instruments exist? — CharlotteWebb 13:57, 14 July 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.

Category:Ministers of Iceland[edit]

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 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ministers of Iceland to Category:Government ministers of Iceland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to standard format of the subcategories of Category:Government ministers by country. Changing it is also a good idea to avoid confusion with Minister (Christianity). Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I've created a new category fitting with the other names. Thanks for your help. Speedy deletion for the old category has been questioned. Jón ₊ 11:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and speedy close sicne the alteration (a most desirable one) has already been made. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 14 July 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.

Category:Vietnam War songs[edit]

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 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vietnam War songs to Category:Songs of the Vietnam War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the outcome of this recent CFR to standardize the naming convention. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, as agreed in previous CFD. Cgingold (talk) 11:38, 14 July 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.

Category:Iraq War songs[edit]

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 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Iraq War songs to Category:Songs of the 2003 Iraq War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the outcome of this recent CFR to standardize the naming convention. Otto4711 (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, as agreed in previous CFD. Cgingold (talk) 11:38, 14 July 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.

Category:Black months[edit]

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 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization of unrelated things by shared name. Otto4711 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The things are related by mostly being large-scale political upheavals costing hundreds or thousands of lives. It's enough. I think more could be added. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There really is no connection between these events apart from the names. I don't really think Black July and Black September in Jordan should be in a category together, since the events really have very little in common. To say that they are all "large-scale political upheavals costing hundreds or thousands of lives" may be true, but there are also many similar-type events not named after a Black month that are not grouped together, and it would be silly to group them together in a category merely because they were ""large-scale political upheavals costing hundreds or thousands of lives". Thus, it's only the name holding theses ones together, and that's overcategorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs) 04:11, July 14, 2008
Delete, this is original synthesis. Note that there is no 'Black month' article, and no real definition of any such term. These incidents just happen to share a name, no other connection. If i just saw the word 'Black month', i'd think it dealt with Black History Month. --Soman (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not synthesis precisely because there is no article. The category is useful for people who can't remewmber which month they are after. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing linking these months other than the word "black" MrMarmite (talk) 14:34, 14 July 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.