Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 5 April 7 >

April 6[edit]

Category:UK MPs 2005-[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK MPs 2005- to Category:UK MPs 2005-2010
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As expected, the next general election in the UK will be held on the 6 May this year.[1] This means we now know the end date for this session of Parliament; we can update the category to reflect this. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Willemstad, Netherlands Antilles[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. — ξxplicit 04:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Willemstad, Netherlands Antilles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is essentially the same as Category:People from Curaçao, as, according to Wikipedia, 125,000 of Curacao's 151,000 inhabitants live in Willemstad. It seems that most to all articles are already in Category:People from Curaçao, which is why I've nominated it for deletion instead of merging.- TM 22:02, 6 April 2010 (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:Hollywood families[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 19#Category:Hollywood families. — ξxplicit 05:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood families could do with the bigger picture treatment. OK, most of the people there were indeed involved in Hollywood at some stage of their career. But some, such as the elder Redgraves, were very much English and did very little work in the USA. Their grandkids Natasha and Joely Richardson have become more associated with Hollywood, but that isn't really true of the whole family/dynasty.

I’m suggesting the category be renamed to Theatrical dynasties or Acting dynasties or Acting families. There could then be a sub-category that mentions the word “Hollywood” if that's really necessary.

On a related note, I see that we now have subcats for the Coppola, DeBarge, Eastwood, Estevez, Jackson, Mankiewicz and Sedgwick families. How are these any different from the Rajesh Khanna, Redgrave, Rooney, Sheen-Estevez, Stiller and Travolta families, all of which subcats were deleted in 2007? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 6 April 2010 (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:World Series champions with both American and National League teams[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:World Series champions with both American and National League teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a significant individual accomplishment and does not merit a category. This is more like trivia than a defining characteristic of a player's career, and seems like a good example of a non-defining/trivial characteristic as defined in WP:OC#TRIVIA. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with Masonpatriot's rationale; appears to be a trivial intersection. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wknight94 talk 02:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too trivial. Adam Penale (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A rather arbitrary and trivial category. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 06:34, 12 April 2010 (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:Tallac Records 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: delete. — ξxplicit 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tallac Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category for redlink record label. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A label not sufficiently notable for its own article certainly doesn't merit a cat. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 06:36, 12 April 2010 (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:Charlotte Hornets (minors) players[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. — ξxplicit 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Charlotte Hornets (minors) players to Category:Charlotte Hornets (baseball) players
Nominator's rationale: Both categories cover the same team, and propose merging to the original category. Masonpatriot (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2010 (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:The great Luke Ski 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 13. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The great Luke Ski albums to Category:Luke Ski albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Luke Ski. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 6 April 2010 (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:All-Japan Grand Touring Car Championship drivers[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 13. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:All-Japan Grand Touring Car Championship drivers to Category:Super GT drivers
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing a merge as these two series are literally the same (organisation, rules, almost everything), only branding and an unsucessful attempt to internationalise the series that makes them appear different when nothing to suggests that they are. I don't personally know why there is a need for two different categories when one is necessary. Donnie Park (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Having these two separate categories is like having a separate categories for the primary NASCAR series (Grand National, Winston Cup, Nextel Cup and Sprint Cup)...same series, same rules, different names. Donnie Park (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:05, 6 April 2010 (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.

National subcategories of Category:Formula One people[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 and delete as nominated. — ξxplicit 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:Australian Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:Austrian Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:Brazilian Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:British Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:French Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:German Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:Indian Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:Italian Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:Japanese Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose merging Category:Swiss Formula One people to Category:Formula One people
Propose deleting Category:Formula One people by nationality (container category for the above-listed categories)
Nominator's rationale: Merge/delete. Reversal of partial dispersion of Category:Formula One people without prior discussion. Makes articles about Formula One people harder to find because you need to know their nationality. Similar categories Category:World Rally Championship people, Category:NASCAR people and Category:Indy Racing League people are not split by nationality. DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the nom's rationale applies to any 'by nationality' category. Other very similar categories are split by nationality, eg Category:Formula One drivers by nationality (which should all be subcats of the 'F1 people' tree but are not). The answer would be to subcategorise the specific 'Formula One people' whom the nom wishes to keep together (Not drivers. engineers? executives?) into 1 subcat and not split it, but Category:Formula One people by nationality is a perfectly standard scheme and ought to contain a lot more subcats. Occuli (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment - racing drivers are very strongly identified by their nationality. Flags appear by the drivers' names on the car, displayed on the podium with national anthems, are bolted into every computer graphic for TV coverage, I see nationality considerably less of an issue here. --Falcadore (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But racing drivers are also Formula 1 people. What 'Formula 1 people' are you talking about who should be kept together? As I say, put them together into a properly-defined subcat of 'Formula 1 people' - Category:American Formula One people consists of 5 people who have no particular connection with each other at all other than widely different connections with F1. Eg there is Category:Formula One designers (a well-defined category not sub-divided). There could be Category:Formula One engineers etc. I don't myself think there should be any people at the top level of Category:Formula One people since the association is not defined. Do we include Hamilton's father? His girlfriend? Commentators? Occuli (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding is that the original intent of Category:Formula One people was to group all people involved in Formula One except the drivers (who are a large enough group to have their own category tree). I think this intent has been diluted over time by the creation of subcategories, e.g. Category:Formula One designers, Category:Formula One team owners, etc. One problem I see with subdividing Category:Formula One people by role is that many Formula One people have occupied multiple roles throughout their career, e.g. Ross Brawn has been both an "engineer" and a "team owner"; Eddie Jordan has been both a "team owner" and a "commentator", etc and I think we run the risk of heading towards overcategorisation. DH85868993 (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would see Formula One commentators a largely unneccessary subcat, when there already is a motorsport commentators category, and most F1 commentators have been commentators of other racing categories as well, and have performed other roles within F1 in addition, for example Eddie Jordan and Peter Windsor. Hamilton's father as an, albeit former, driver manager would qualify if an article on him existed. He would be in the same group as people like Willi Weber, Ann Neal and Flavio Briatore in that regard. By girlfriend do you mean Nicole Scherzinger? If so then no for a number of reasons, primarily because she has never had any role other than spectator but also because she is no longer his girlfriend.
          • In an attempt to summarise, Formula One drivers have been subdivided by nationality as nationality is often the most well known aspect of an F1 driver apart from team affiliation, which is of course transitory. Formula One people was perceived to by everyone other than F1 drivers. While drivers are of course F1 people the sheer number of them would obscure the rest. The F1 drivers categories should be cross-refenced in F1 people though as well. That nationality criteria, so well known amongst drivers, is not well known at all for most F1 people, making the sub-catogorisation problematic.
  • Revert to previous - per nom. Is actually a serious impediment to readability and for searching as nationality becomes a pre-requisite to finding anybody in the category if unsure of name and nationality of race team members and other associated F1 personnel is considerably less obvious than for drivers for whom it is broadcasted at every available opportunity. --Falcadore (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per nomination. Over-categorisation, provides no help to readers when most F1 associated people nationalities are not known. Previous category of Formula One people was more helpful QueenCake (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a problem with breaking these down into nationality. The same objections could be made about every other collection of sportspeople, and they are almost uniformly broken down into nationality. I'm not convinced by the argument that "the nationality of most Formula One people is unknown, thus this is unhelpful". Surely then, that is a reason to categorize by nationality! If you know the name of the person you are looking for but don't know the nationality, you can do a search as opposed to finding them in the category scheme. On the other hand, if you want to find Indian Formula One people but don't know any of their names, you can use the category system. Categories can't do everything for everybody and are not the only way to skin the cat. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There already is Category:Formula One drivers by nationality. It looks like some of the people in the above categories really belong in the subcategories of Category:Formula One drivers by nationality Having both of these appears to be making searching difficult. I'll admin that with the upmerge, cleanup will be needed and at the same time, we probably should convert Category:Formula One people to a {{container category}}. Lets get everyone classified by their role which should be primary and then allow a breakout of the subcategories by nationality if they grow excessively large. If after all of this, we still feel a need for Category:Fooian Formula One people, then they can be recreated as a container category using only any nationality subcategories in the various trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome is a relatively minor heart condition whereby a person has an "irregular heartbeat". From the article: "The incidence of WPW syndrome is between 0.9% and 3% of the general population. While the vast majority of individuals with a bundle of Kent remain asymptomatic throughout their entire lives, there is a risk of sudden death associated with the syndrome. Sudden death due to WPW syndrome is rare (incidence of less than 0.6%) ..." We have subcategories in Category:People by medical or psychological condition for people with conditions that are either (1) the reason the person is notable (eg, Category:People with hypertrichosis, Category:People with gigantism) ; or (2) are so major or important so as to have had a major impact on the person's activities (eg, Category:People with schizophrenia). Not to belittle those who suffer from this condition, but I don't think it rises to the level of being something that is so defining for a person that we need to categorize by it. Some of the included articles (eg, Jeff Garlin, Marilyn Manson, Michael Rupp) don't even mention that the person has this, except via the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator as a non-defining attribute. If kept, remove from the category any articles where inclusion is not supported by refs to reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 11 April 2010 (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:Formula One drivers killed while racing[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. — ξxplicit 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Formula One drivers killed while racing to Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing
Nominator's rationale: I propose that Category:Formula One drivers killed while racing be merged back into Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing, from which it was recently spawned, on the basis that it's unnecessary overcategorization. Furthermore, I think the category name may suggest that these drivers were killed while racing Formula One cars, which many (most?) of them weren't. DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and listify a list can clearly indicate the circumstances. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, over-categorization, no other race series has or needs this category. QueenCake (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. --Falcadore (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2010 (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:Melanie 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 as nominated. The category can be set to sort to the "M"s and if the name ever changes, so too can the applicable categories that apply to her. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Melanie albums to Category:Melanie Safka albums
Nominator's rationale: per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: This entry was accidently removed from its proper place due to an edit conflict. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Melanie will not do, and the article is indeed at Melanie Safka, and her songs are at Category:Melanie Safka songs (sorted under Safka). However I am perhaps not alone in knowing of her only as Melanie and I would assume that Melanie Safka is someone else altogether. It seems to me that a better name for the article would be Melanie (something) (cf Prince (musician), Madonna (entertainer), Björk, BoA, Duffy (singer), Usher (entertainer), Cher ie we use the stage name if possible and otherwise add a disamb of some sort). Occuli (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Occuli, she is professionally known as Melanie and the article name should reflect this. I have made a request for a move to Melanie (singer), which is currently a redirect, on her talk page. With this move, a change in category name would not be necessary. Cjc13 (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname since even if the article is moved to "Melanie (singer)" the category name would still be ambiguous. So either the suggested name or Category:Melanie (singer) albums, if the rename is successful. Remember it could categorize albums named "Melanie" (of which we even have articles for). 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2010 (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:2006 in winter sports[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. — ξxplicit 04:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:2006 in winter sports to Category:2006 in sports
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Nominator's rationale: this category is an one-year only orphan, and has not been continued since 2006 Hugo999 (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 6 April 2010 (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:Ambient 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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ambient albums to Category:Ambient music albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes perfect sense to me: get everything consistent. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This does not make everything consistent. It is normal in subcategories like this not to include music in the title, as all ambient albums consist of music. If you rename this category than you should also rename all the other categories in Category:Electronic albums by genre as well as many other similar categories. Cjc13 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Cjc13 as the proposed rename conflicts with the convention of Category:Albums by genre. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:24, 6 April 2010 (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:Last hitter of the World Series[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. — ξxplicit 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Last hitter of the World Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not even clear on why this category would be thought up in the first place. Do we really have a need of categorizing the various hitters who happened to hit into the last out when his team was defeated for the World Series? (The majority of these will be from the losing team, not the winning team, since it is more rare in baseball for the final batter to win the game. Far more commonly, he just creates the final out whereby the winning team seals the victory.) But anyway, I don't think that in general this is a defining characteristic for the various players. Arguably, it could for those whose final hit won the World Series, like Joe Carter or Gene Larkin, but certainly not for the vast majority of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a defining characteristc for the vast majority of these players. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (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:User latex-0[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: Already speedy deleted by VegaDark as a recreation of deleted material (CSD G4). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User latex-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category, which has extensive, unanimous precedent to delete as knowing who doesn't speak a language is not helpful to categorize. Note - This was previously deleted so I G4'd it thinking it was due to a deletion discussion, but apparently the previous deletion was due to it being empty, so a G4 is improper. However, since this has a 0% chance of being kept, and listing is merely a formality, I am not going to bother restoring it for the sake of this nomination. If someone feels the need to do so though, feel free. VegaDark (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a "not-based" user category that groups users on the basis of the absence of a characteristic and which, therefore, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. As VegaDark noted, there is unanimous precedent to delete 0-level language knowledge user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (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:User XUL-0[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User XUL-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category, which has extensive, unanimous precedent to delete as knowing who doesn't speak a language is not helpful to categorize. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a "not-based" user category that groups users on the basis of the absence of a characteristic and which, therefore, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. As VegaDark noted, there is unanimous precedent to delete 0-level language knowledge user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless and superfluous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 10 April 2010 (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:User MathML-0[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User MathML-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category, which has extensive, unanimous precedent to delete as knowing who doesn't speak a language is not helpful to categorize. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a "not-based" user category that groups users on the basis of the absence of a characteristic and which, therefore, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. As VegaDark noted, there is unanimous precedent to delete 0-level language knowledge user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless and superfluous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 10 April 2010 (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:User pcd-0[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User pcd-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category, which has extensive, unanimous precedent to delete as knowing who doesn't speak a language is not helpful to categorize. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a "not-based" user category that groups users on the basis of the absence of a characteristic and which, therefore, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. As VegaDark noted, there is unanimous precedent to delete 0-level language knowledge user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless and superfluous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 10 April 2010 (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.

Bobby Valentino[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Bobby Valentino, an American singer, has shortened his stage name simply to Bobby V. These categories do not refer to British musician, Bobby Valentino. — ξxplicit 03:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – nearly all the links in the Bobby V material are to the wrong Valentino (who fortunately seems not to have recorded any individual material). There is also Bobby Vee. Occuli (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2010 (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:Association football lists by country[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 23#Category:Association football lists by country. — ξxplicit 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by country to Category:Association football-related lists by country Category:Association-football-related lists by country
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category, Category:Association football-related lists. I considered adding the subcategories to this nomination but couldn't think of a good alternative name (Association football in Foo-related lists is unwieldy and ambiguous). (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why is making it consistent with 1 supercat preferable to keeping it consistent with 5 subcats? The proposed "-related" might appear to qualify only "football" rather than "association football". The supersupercat Category:Sports-related lists has some subcats with "-related" in the name and some without. WP:HYPHEN recommends paraphrasing to avoid hyphens in long compound nouns; I would suggest renaming the supercat to Category:Association football lists, or perhaps Category:Lists relating to association football, but only as part of a broader standardization. jnestorius(talk) 10:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true; if "-related" is retained, the title should be Category:Association-football-related lists by country (I have adjusted the nomination accordingly).
    I am not averse to the idea of undertaking a broader standardization of Category:Sports-related lists, but I prefer the Foo-related lists format over Foo lists or Lists relating to foo. Foo lists can be confusing as it suggests that the category contains lists of Foo, which does not work well for most topics (e.g., "lists of association football"). Lists of foo works for certain topics (e.g., Category:Lists of snooker players) but not for others. Lists relating to foo is accurate, but highly non-standard (there are only three categories that currently use this format). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2010 (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:Australian rugby league teams[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. — ξxplicit 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging of Category:Australian rugby league clubs and Category: Australian rugby league teams
Nominator's rationale: These two overlapping categories should be merged into one category. I was amazed to find that both existed. Possible new name could be Category: Rugby league teams in Australia although I am open to other suggestions. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Australian rugby league clubs or rename to Category:Rugby league clubs in Australia as 'club' the preferred term within the sport Mayumashu (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be careful with a merge here. A team does not always equal a club. Indeed, some teams are most definitely not clubs. The sub-cat Category:Rugby league representative teams in Australia includes rugby league teams that are not clubs, but rather, representative selections. Perhaps better category naming can fix the issue? The whole category tree is a bit of a mess and this could be an opportunity to clean it up. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Similar categories for other countries use team rather then club. See Category: Rugby league teams. Regards to above cats, there does not see to be any criteria to distinguish between either. In fact I have seen some articles in both. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a clear criteria to separate the two concepts, it just hasn'r been used properly in these categories. A club is just that, a club: such as South Sydney Rabbitohs etc. It is a organisation dedicated to putting sporting teams on the park, contracts its own players etc. A team on the other hand does not necessarily have to be a club. New South Wales rugby league team is not a club, it is a representative selection of players from various clubs. To use a football example, Manchester United FC is a club that has a range of teams, including obviously their main team; the England national football team is not a club, but is simply a team. Perhaps football could be used as an example to help tidy the RL cats. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need an explanation on difference between clubs and teams but whoever filled these cats might. If you check the teams and clubs listed you will see that they have just been randomly added without follwing any kind of criteria. There is no need for both cats. One should go and I suggest it should be the clubs as the teams one can be more inclusive and this is inline with other rugby league cats for other countries. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProjects Australia and Rugby league have been notified ([2][3]). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about Category:Australian rugby league clubs and teams? Bidgee (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like Bidgee's suggestion. The club/team distinction exists, but it's not like we have separate articles on the reserve grade and youth teams of NRL clubs. Accordingly, while the distinction exists, it's not a useful distinction for categorisation purposes. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A productive suggestion. Otherwise we could put the Clubs category inside the Teams category? A club is always going to field teams, but it is not necessarily the other way around. As noted, it is not like we have multiple articles for each club (U-20's, reserve grade etc). Mattlore (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    actually a club isnt always going to field teams, the Rabbitohs didnt field a team 200,2001 but still existed as a club, when the Western Reds team played the team was fielded by the WARL and "the club" was a separate entity though admittably they were suppose to take over the team at a later date. Gnangarra 02:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are distinctions betwenn what is the club and what is the team, obviously the categories need to be cleaned up. A team is fleeting thing that changes with each game(season), its also something that is manufactured for an event such State of Origin, World Cup. Where as a club is the sturcture, the supporters, the support staff that field a team and perpetuate the history, they also combine with other clubs to formulate the competition in which they field the teams. Gnangarra 02:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would have thought "Australian rugby league teams" with subcategories "Australian rugby league clubs" and "Australian representative rugby league teams". I can't think of any team that can't be neatly categorised under one of those two.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I definitely see where the nominator is coming from here, and for most cases what they're suggesting makes sense. However, there are I suspect enough odd cases that I don't think a straight rename is the best way to proceed. For instance, my preferred team is the Redcliffe Dolphins. There are actually two related entities, the Redcliffe Dolphins and Redcliffe Leagues Club which the article could be for. The former is the team, the other is for the club. My understanding is that the club fields the team, but the two are kept at arms length. In this case, the Leagues Club is probably not notable, but if we had articles on both that could be problematic if we only had one category!

    The other point that should be made is that the Queensland rugby league team (and its not-to-be-named equivalent in that other state) is a team, not a club. So it would be inaccurate to use "club" for everything, even though that is the term commonly used for teams in the NRL and as far as I'm aware, in all of the second-tier competitions.

    What I suggest we do instead, is move every article that explicitly refers to a "team" from the "clubs" category to the "teams" category, and retain the clubs category for articles like Eels rugby league club that refer to the club rather than the team. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:33, 12 April 2010 (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.

Stadia[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:stadiums. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 5#Category:Stadia_of_the_Commonwealth_Games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 6 April 2010 (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/2010_April_6&oldid=1138393451"