Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:US mortgage industry[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:US mortgage industry to Category:Mortgage industry of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename; eliminate abbreviation, and conform with other categories in Category:Economy of the United States. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:33, 9 June 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.

Dominican to Dominica[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dominican people by occupation to Category:Dominica people by occupation
Category:Dominican people by religion to Category:Dominica people by religion
Category:Dominican Christians to Category:Dominica Christians
Category:Dominican Protestants to Category:Dominica Protestants
Category:Dominican Methodists to Category:Dominica Methodists
Category:Dominican Roman Catholics to Category:Dominica Roman Catholics
Category:Dominican women to Category:Dominica women
Category:Dominican artists to Category:Dominica artists
Category:Dominican historians to Category:Dominica historians
Category:Dominican missionaries to Category:Dominica missionaries
Category:Dominican Christian missionaries to Category:Dominica Christian missionaries
Category:Dominican musicians to Category:Dominica musicians
Category:Politicians of Dominica to Category:Dominica politicians
Category:Sportspeople of Dominica to Category:Dominica sportspeople
Category:Dominican athletes to Category:Dominica athletes
Category:Basketball players of Dominica to Category:Dominica basketball players
Category:Dominican footballers to Category:Dominica footballers
Category:Dominican football referees to Category:Dominica football referees
Category:Dominican writers to Category:Dominica writers
Category:Dominican diaspora to Category:Dominica diaspora
Category:Dominican expatriates to Category:Dominica expatriates
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. In light of the consensus from a 2008 MAY 16 CfD, it would be appropriate to rename all of the categories that use "Dominican" as an adjective for people from Dominica to simply "Dominica" (per the Dominican Republic/Trinidad and Tobago/Bosnia and Herzegovina/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of the Congo style of naming). This will hopefully resolve any confusion these may present, since saying "Dominican" can (and usually does) mean "Dominican Republic". It wouldn't hurt to keep the pages as DAB pages directing to the Dominica and Dominican Republic pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we dab categories? Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like this — jwillbur 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to disambiguate from the Dominican Republic. The Dominican missionaries one could also easily be confused with the Dominican order. — jwillbur 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Much needed housekeeping. - Darwinek (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:33, 19 June 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:Judds albums[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 (should have been speedy). — CharlotteWebb 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Judds albums to Category:The Judds albums
Nominator's rationale: Albums were credited to The Judds, not Judds. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As the category creator I must confess my lack of knowledge about The Judds. Oh Snap (talk) 03:33, 10 June 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:Underpopulated operas by year categories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Underpopulated operas by year categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete It's been slapped on 200 pages for no rhyme or reason as far as I can see (what constitutes "underpopulated"?). These year categories will fill up naturally. Having this whopping great template is unlikely to be an incentive to anybody to go and create the articles. Folantin (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination rationale.Nrswanson (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The opera corpus lists approaching 2000 works. he genre has been in existence for a little over 400 years. So we'll be averaging something under 5 operas a year even when we've covered all the corpus. Category:1875 operas is included in this category and it contains eight members. So, we're not going to be able to remove most years if eight is "Underpopulated". The category and accompanying template therefore will therefore nevr be depopulated and is misconceived certainly as currently implemented. I can't see how t could be made useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Two further points: 1) I don't think it has been "slapped" but it was always there since BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) introduced Template:OperasByYear in May 2007. 2) I don't think deleting the Category:Underpopulated operas by year categories (UOBYC) will do what we want: removing those notices from the "Category:YYYY operas" pages. These notices appear on those pages courtesy of of Template:Popcat, which we certainly don't want to delete. IANAWE (I Am Not A Wikipedia Expert), but I can't see how to remove those notices other than removing the Template:Popcat from every "Category:YYYY operas" page; then, the UOBYC will depopulate itself. I just tested this: the Category:2008 operas never had this template and it did not show up in UOBYC; I then removed the template Popcat from Category:2007 operas and it no longer appears in UOBYC. Of course, it seems entirely trivial to remove the template Popcat from all "Category:YYYY operas" pages. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:37, 10 June 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:Decca artists[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: listify, updating List of artists under the Decca Records label. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Decca artists to Category:Decca Records artists
Nominator's rationale: Most other categories of this sort are "(foo) Records artists". This should be renamed to match. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - very similar to categorizing actors by the studios for which they've worked or sportscasters by the networks on which they've appeared, both of which schemes (along with other similar performer by venue structures) have been deleted. Recording artists can and do work for multiple labels in the course of a career. Looking at one Decca artist (who isn't in the category), Judy Garland discography shows that Judy recorded for Decca, Brunswick, MGM, Columbia, Capitol, EMI and Warner Bros. and that was just while she was alive. Since her death she's had albums released by among others, Prism Leisure Corp., Music For Pleasure, Delta Music, CEMA, Turner Entertainment, MCA, Nimbus and Rhino, and that's just the CDs I happen to own. That's potentially 15 categories and the list is far from complete. Far too much potential for category clutter with this scheme. The rest of the Artists by label structure should also be examined. Otto4711 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify & Delete per Otto. Making it a current category would only make things worse. Most of Decca's famous artists are dead or retired. I think some labels with a very distinct style - Motown, Factory Records, Stax Records deserve a category, but not most big labels. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 10 June 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:Transportation in Korea[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. Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Transportation in Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
:Nominator's rationale: DELETE - Korea is not a country, only a former country. North and South Korea are sovereign nations and therefore should be listed under Transportation listed by country, and the associated entry for Korea should be deleted. THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would be able to support this if we did not have Korea only categories included. Where are those proposed to be placed? This is just one of many categories with this issue. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ♠ I understand your point, but we can't leave something incorrect out of convenience. We work to correct it. Who knows why the original editors decided that Korea was a country, I sure don't. Maybe they lived prior to the Korean War. Nevertheless, corrections need to be made and the subcats moved accordingly. This does not affect the article on Korea, only the categories mentioned. You can't call a place a country, when it isn't. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename every Category under Category:Korea is set up in the same fashion and no one of them should be changed unless they are all changed. And they should be changed only if a good argument is advanced to do so and none is advanced herein. Take it up with whatever group works on Korea. Hmains (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me or telling me? I initiated the discussion here, but I could have be bold and gone forth making changes. But I don't work that way when the issue is complex. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Korea has been a unified country for many more years than it has been separated into two. Not all categories necessarily refer to the "current" world situation — there are many historical articles in WP. Because history exists, we also have categories for things in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ottoman Empire, Tibet, East Germany, North Yemen, South Yemen, Mengjiang, the Panama Canal Zone, and the Chinese Qing Dynasty. There's nothing wrong with it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the intent is to clean up something that is wrong, then feel free to nominate Category:Korea. A discussion on this single subcategory is not going to be the way to resolve the many issues that this type of nomination would create if we deleted this category. As long as Korea exists as an article I don't believe that there would be any consensus to remove any part of the Category:Korea tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 14 June 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:House of Yahweh[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:House of Yahweh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category is too narrow and only covers a single organization. Not very populated. THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought at one point it was more populated and perhaps may have been depopulated, though I could be mistaken. I think it should be kept as a useful category that will most likely be more populated in the future, though I suppose the category could be recreated if that were the case at some point. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of a rationale, that it might be populated in the future. This is a single organization with a single location; what's the advantage of a category just for them? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, they do have a branch in Kenya I think; but still no reason to give them their own category. They can be placed under another more general type. If I own an company called Exxon, and only had two gas stations, should I get my own category? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small category with little seeming potential for growth. The template links the two articles and those for other related concepts. Otto4711 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents -- This seems to be about a single church, though whether of Messianic Jews or Judai-izing Christians is not clear to me, but it is probably the latter. Two of the leaders are alleged criminals. It seems of little notability, but the main article does exist, and so needs a category --but not one of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 10 June 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:Clutter family murders[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Clutter family murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - no lead article on the murders, no articles about the family or the individual family members (all having been merged and redirected to In Cold Blood per AFD). The contents are all extensively interlinked through each of the articles. Otto4711 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to agree with Otto's assessment -- there really does not seem to be a very good rationale for this category. Cgingold (talk) 21:48, 9 June 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:Electronic music pioneers[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electronic music pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: DELETE The attribution of "Pioneer" to a band is inherently POV. indopug (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the 13 other categories in Category:Pioneers by field? Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't know (my first XfD); should I add them too? indopug (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, this category may have aspects/issues that are different from the others. Cgingold (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case none of the others in the pioneer category are music genre-related. (Automobile pioneers etc) indopug (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify scope. This category is needed for technological pioneers such as Robert Moog or Léon Theremin, who can be identified (like many of the technological pioneers under Category:Pioneers by field) by their inventions . Musicians all create original work in some way, so this term is POV when applied to bands; no objective standard is given to answer fans who wish to call their faves "pioneers". Inclusion standards should be changed on the page for this category (which currently says "composers"), and bands should be removed. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even with the narrowed scope suggested, "pioneer" is still too POV for use as a category name. The other "pioneer" categories should also be examined. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 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:Fictional LGBT characters[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: not merged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Fictional gay men to Category:Fictional LGBT characters
Suggest merging Category:Fictional lesbians to Category:Fictional LGBT characters
Suggest merging Category:Fictional bisexuals to Category:Fictional LGBT characters
Suggest merging Category:Fictional transgendered people to Category:Fictional LGBT characters
Nominator's rationale: All four categories cover the same categorization of LGBT fictional characters. I see no need for separate ones for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals, just list them all under LGBT characters. Ctjf83Talk 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, missed that one (now added) basically what makes someone fit in the fictional gay men category, but not the fictional LGBT category, nothing. So how is it decided which of the two to list a specific fictional gay male in? For example Will Truman from Will and Grace is listed as a fictional gay male, well why was this chosen, as apposed to fictional LGBT characters? This way it just covers all LGBT characters in one category, instead of having the possibility of them being in 2 basically identical categories. I guess in my thinking it is like having a category for people born in the United States, and also having one for people born in the eastern US and one for people born in the western US. They are all people born in the US, so the broader category is better, than unneeded specifics, in this example, which half of the US. Ctjf83Talk 07:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for having sub-categories is that they provide greater specificity at the same time as reducing the number of articles in the parent category, both of which help to improve navigation/usability. We don't, after all, have one gigantic category for all fictional characters. The real point is that Category:Fictional LGBT characters is basically just a convenient grouping of related -- but distinct -- sub-categories. There is, of course, no such thing as an "LGBT character". Those that have been placed directly in the parent cat should be moved into the appropriate sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - No Merge per my comments above. Cgingold (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - No Merge – the nom's arguments apply to any subcategory. There seems to be nothing unusual about these particular ones. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - No Merge --DrBat (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Cgingold's points above and inherent utility of breaking it down. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - none of the sub-categories are tagged for discussion. If they were, I would !vote keep. In some instances, I find subdividing an LGBT category problematic, but in this instance not. I would point out that there are some characters that do belong in the parent category. For instance, Queer Duck and Roger (American Dad) aren't "men" (one is a duck and the other is an alien) and Jack Twist is not clearly identified as either gay or bisexual. Otto4711 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Subcategories help unclatter extensive parent categories. Which is the case here. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 10 June 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:Fair use articles needing expert attention[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fair use articles needing expert attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - I don't believe there is a such thing as a "fair use article". If there were, it would go against the licensing policy, and we can't have that. Requested by Bjweeks. Soxred 93 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted or if usage is clarified rename. BJTalk 03:51, 9 June 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:Non-fiction novels[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 to rename or delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fiction novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - My first thought when I spotted this category was that it was either a joke or must have been created by an editor who was suffering from confusion about what a novel is. (And I have run into a few who did not realize that "novel" is not, in fact, a synonym for "book".) After taking a few minutes to look through the contents and read the main article, I could easily see what the basic concept is -- but I'm still not persuaded that it can serve as a viable category. Aside from the fact that the term "Non-fiction novel" is not widely accepted, the more fundamental problem is that what gets included is bound to be highly subjective. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is Nonfiction novel (which suggests a rename of the category, if kept). It seems to be a valid genre - if a source can be found stating that a particular novel is an example of the genre then it can be placed in the category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - to Category:Nonfiction novels. A genre pioneered by Truman Capote with the authorship of In Cold Blood. Otto4711 (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't disagree that there is in fact a genre. But there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon name for it, and given that this is a recent development in the field of literature, I'm not confident that editors would use it properly. Is the opinion of any one source attesting to a book's membership in this genre really sufficient? Cgingold (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were to add 'reliable' to source (eg book review in reputable publication) would that help? I'm no expert on the genres of novels but some of the others in Category:Novels by genre appear to be of comparable difficulty. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, I suppose you make a fair point about some of the sub-cats of Category:Novels by genre, which I hadn't looked into, as I came across this category as one of the 72 types of non-fiction in Category:Non-fiction books -- where it stands out like the proverbial "sore thumb". On the other hand, reading the following line near the end of the main article surely has to give one pause: "...because of the potential over-applicability of the generic title, the "nonfiction novel" is surrounded by theoretical obscurity." Whew. It's still not clear to me (from the discussion in the article) whether any of Joan Didion's books would rightly belong in this category. And I feel even less clear about the subject after reading Capote's discussion of it in this 1966 interview with George Plimpton.
To answer your question, I guess that would probably be good enough -- at least for those books that happen to have received attention from a reviewer who happens to have described the book in question using this particular term. At the very least, that would curtail the likely over/mis-use of the category. But given the inherent fuzziness of the concept, and the lack of agreement among writers/critics/scholars, I'm pretty sure there are books that one reviewer would call "Non-fiction novels" and another reviewer would insist were nothing of the sort. What then? Cgingold (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- My first reaction was that the term was a contradiction, but it appears that I am wrong. The main article is now Non-fiction novel, so that the category should retain this form. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genre does exist, and there are numerous sufficiently notable books within it to warrant a category. Questions about the most appropriate name for the article and category are a different matter. One possibility would be "creative non-fiction", another term that's used for the same genre, if people feel that the current name is too confusing or too likely to be misunderstood. Either keep or rename. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 11 June 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:Considerably young authors[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Considerably young authors to Category:Child writers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, There's no definition for this category, but from it's name and current contents I'm suspecting it's meant to categorise child writers. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious merge per nom -- although it is certainly a charming name, sounds rather like it might have been created by A.A. Milne. :) As so often with poorly conceived or redundant categories, there's no parent cat(s). I think requiring every newly-created category to have at least one parent cat would greatly reduce the number of "unhelpful" categories that end up being dealt with here at CFD. (Hopefully, I hasten to add, without completely eliminating the really fun ones!) Cgingold (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - Daisy Ashford, surely the giant of the genre, still in print after 90 years, now added. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I created the category, couldn't think of a suitable name - had no idea that the "Child writers" category existed. User:sparhawk08 21:00, 11 June 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:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains navboxes related to the Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club. As such, it should either be renamed to Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club navigational boxes (per, for instance, Category:Australian rugby league navigational boxes) or deleted as unnecessary. All of the templates are already categorised here and/or here. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 8 June 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:Special hearings of the United States Congress[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Special hearings of the United States Congress to Category:Investigations and hearings of the United States Congress
Nominator's rationale: Merge, It's a more-inclusive name. —Markles 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be relisted for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in support): We don't (yet) need a separate category for special hearings compared to ordinary hearings. Ordinary hearings aren't likely to generate a Wikipedia article anyway. We can just collect them all in "Investigations and hearings…."—Markles 23:58, 8 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_9&oldid=1136463338"