The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I started to check articles for a better name and I kept getting only one hit on DIY in each article. I could not detect a common trait other then having DIY in the article text. If someone can figure out what is intended here and provide an unambiguous set of inclusion criteria, then I have no objection to a rename and keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One could go for something like Temporary Autonomous Zones though could be giving Bey's jargon too much coverage? AllyD (talk) 07:53, 10 July 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.
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. — ξxplicit 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the main article. I'll point out that the main article could well be considered a dab page. Also remove Category:Potholes if renamed and the category has not been deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs qualifier. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 15 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Overcategorization. Upmerge into the only parent category. Beagel (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pointless splinter category by banned user Mac/Nopetro. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 10 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another tough one. Only has the main article and one organization. So based on that there would be an easy delete as a small category with limited growth. Not too many notable potholes around. But then we have the images. I was not able to locate an appropriate image category for these so the question comes down to do we need a category for pothole images? If yes, this probably needs a rename and cleanup. If not, we can simply delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As person whose car too often hits potholes in poorly maintained roads (think citizens who won't tax themselves to maintain their infrastructure), I must say the pictures are pretty good. Maybe they can all go into the article? Would not want to lose them. Hmains (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articlise the pictures which all appear to refer to "Banbury Town". However, I think the subject is really too deatailed to warrant a WP article; possibly a section in the one on the town.
These are likely temporary visitors here since they will be moved to commons. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:27, 22 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization. Includes only limited number of articles with limited perspective to be more populated. Beagel (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pointless splinter category by banned user Mac/Nopetro. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 10 July 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.
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:Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Currently a single entry category. The article has other parents, so we only need to add it to one of the parent categories here. I don't see a need for classifying modern toys by the material used. Also I don't believe that these were exclusively made from wood which is simply the major component.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Killjoy. With a little bit of fun work wondering through toy categories and aricles, there are now 36 articles in this category, just for starters. The toys are or were made primarily of wood. The wooden ones are what many of played with and remember, at least everyone over 50 or so in the US and probably younger in other countries where plastic did not take over so soon. There is no need to get into percentages of wood and other such things. Toys are for fun. Wood is good! Hmains (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expanded - nice work! Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 11 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another hair puller! The effective main article is Combo television unit, but not one of the other articles is about this. I'm sure we could find articles to populate this correctly, but do we? Doing so would be more of a buyers guide issue. That leaves us with 2 TVs with built in video consoles. The last two are Macs. One could be switched from computer mode to TV mode. The other has a TV tuner. Just about every computer today can add a tuner card. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 9 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. As I understand it, people make kits that can be used to convert a vehicle to use plug in technology. The fact that a vehicle has a kit available is not something we should be categorizing. And if anyone if wondering this and the previous nominations are not from our favorite category creators. These are from another editor. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, I think you may be right. The appearance of the User page is very similar. (Hey, remember when you said it would take a couple of hours to clean this all up? :-)). Anyway, yes, Delete. Many cars can be converted after purchase, if I understand correctly. It can totally be DIY, as Aftermarket (automotive) explains. This one article is for a corporate prototype that never actually produced after a single vehicle. Trivial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 9 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. First it is not about vehicles. The contents are a California related article and a few companies. Also we should not start classifying vehicles by areas of a state. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pointless splinter category, possibly by a newly discovered sock of banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 10 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry category with a single parent category. If anyone can figure out the purpose of the category maybe I can award a prize? Do we need two barnstars? One for the creators of these and another for the discovers of these? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pointless splinter category, possibly by a newly discovered sock of banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 10 July 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.
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 purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Probably a better name given the existence of a main article. Note the existence of Category:Zero-carbon economy. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. I'll check that it's tidied-up afterwards. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:05, 21 July 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.
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 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Selective Merge to one or more of the parents. Being elderly and being disabled are not the same. Likewise not all solutions or law benefit both populations. Also you can be disabled at birth and may not need elderly assistance until you turn 100. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, intersection categories are evil. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After searching for where best to classify Nursing home residents' rights (itself at AFD), I settled on this category. Putting it in "elderly" and "disabled" might be best but I think there is some argument for a category where mutual needs of elderly and disabled intersect.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:15, 20 July 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:Electricity policies and initiatives of the European Union[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 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge this single entry category that does not appear to benefit navigation, and has limited expansion possibilities to its sole parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This category contains only a limited number of entries now. At the same time in longer term I see potential for expansion. Beagel (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating is always allowed in the future when there are sufficient articles to populate a category. We generally don't keep underpopulated categories around on the chance that there will be future articles to populate them. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom for now. Too small to have separate at this stage. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:38, 19 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm bring this here for a discussion. I wonder about the need for this category and the associated subcategories. Advocacy and how defining it needs to be considered on a case by case basis however several of the articles I looked at don't even mention advocate in the article's text. If there is support for this, the subcategories will need to be added to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 9 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I see no reason for this category when all everything could be in the sole parent. I'm unable to figure out the difference between vehicle regulations and vehicle law. Whatever small difference might exist is far outweighed by the difficulty in navigation created by having the subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pointless splinter category, possibly by a newly discovered sock of banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 10 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Small category with limited growth potential. In addition, I see no navigational advantage for not having these in the sole parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and WP:SMALLCAT: possibly created by a newly discovered sock of banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 10 July 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 related to the International Energy Agency[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:Delete. Membership here is candidates for high level positions and holders of those positions. For the holders, the majority seem to be only a mention raising questions about how defining this is for those individuals. Then we have the ever ambiguous related in the title. All in all, deletion may be the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 9 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Judging from the sole parent, the intended contents here are All-in-one microcomputers. First off, microcomputer is rather vague on the definition. This vagueness means that just about anything from a GPS to an iPod to a smartphone qualifies. However I don't think we really have any all-in-ones since they don't include scanners, printers and televisions. Note that despite the sole parent, Category: Television-computer combo systems is included. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 20:33, 9 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Basically a diesel engine is capable of running on an extremely large number of fuels. In modern society, the most common fuel used is petroleum based which is sometimes also know as petrodiesel. So this category is probably better titled Category:Diesel engine fuels that are not petroleum based. Well that violates the guideline of using what is not in for a category. It also leaves a question about where you classify biodiesel which is commonly diluted with petrodiesel so that more vehicles can use it without engine modifications. All of the articles have other parents so deletion should not create issues. Also the category name is ambiguous since diesel is a fuel and a type of engine. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 9 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Overcategorization. Includes only one entry with is questionable. Only one parent category. Propose to upmerge with category:Hybrid electric vehicles. Beagel (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Pointless splinter category, possibly by a newly discovered sock of banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:47, 10 July 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:Companies based in Tomioka-shi, Japan[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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 21:57, 20 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I propose this rename strictly because "artworks in metal" is a very awkward phrasing. I believe that "metal artwork" conveys the same meaning without the awkwardness. Wizard191 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as creator) I, on the other hand, find "Metal artwork" more awkward, and less precise. What exactly is wrong with "Artworks in metal"? Most of the items in the sub-cats are from the "decorative arts" rather than being sculptures (except for the bronzes), which "metal artwork" rather implies. "Art in metal" might be an alternative, but I don't really see a need to change. The nominator may not be used to the terminology normally used in art history. Actually I now see that Category:Bronze sculptures were not even in this category tree (now added), because of the intervening Category:Bronzeware, which would not include scuptures. That is the one that needs renaming. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The new phrasing suggested, although shorter in words, is more awkward, less intuitive and unorthodox in meaning. Ty 13:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It must just be me then. I suppose its just my lack of knowledge in art history that makes this terminology seem awkward to me. Wizard191 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. For me 'metal artwork' sounds as if it would refer to modern applications, whereas 'artworks in metal' has the more formal tone that seems appropriate for the works in this category. I think the difference is also akin to 'canvas paintings' vs. 'paintings on canvas'. JNW (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, the current category name sounds terribly awkward to me -- the kind of Wikipedia nuspeak that seems to be creeping into more and more of our categories. I see nothing at all confusing or "unorthodox" about the rename suggestion; it is vastly better, imo, as an example of real-world non-Wiki commonly used English. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"in metal" is correct art-history traditionalspeak, not Wikipedia nuspeak, as the art editors above are aware! Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 11 July 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.
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 this and newly created subcategories. No need to wait for new listings under this unique circumstance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a vague category which includes many different types of "proposed country" at completely different stages (or no stage at all) on a path towards being a country. There are former proposed countries that certainly are not potential countries now and future potential countries. There is no criteria for what justifies to be included on the list. There are different meanings to the word "country". For that reason there is not even a list of countries article, simply one on sovereign states to avoid confusion. There is no article on "proposed countries" it simply redirects to a huge List of active autonomist and secessionist movements which has some serious flaws too. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I noticed earlier today that Cornwall has been in this category in some form or other for a while, when the switch to the "in Europe" sub-cat popped up on my watchlist. I'm not sure of the value of a category that appears to run all the way from places that are either in limbo of some sort or on the verge possibly of full statehood - eg Palestine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, the TRNC etc - to vaguely proposed unions of existing countries, or to places that are pretty happily and uncontroversially part of another state, but where one bloke with a website once said he wanted full nationhood, even if, beyond that, there might be a small movement calling for more autonomy. A category strictly limited to the former might make some sense. But let's not shove Cornwall, "Balkania" and Kosovo into the same box. N-HHtalk/edits 10:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a container category, since its subcats are not being proposed for deletion and they certainly need this category to group them together. Hmains (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like those subcategories deleted too as they have exactly the same problem. I thought it would be best to see the views on this category before nominating all of its subs too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I subcategorized them, I noticed that they were all already appropriately categorized. No merging would be necessary; nothing would be orphaned of categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is clear what is meant here: if there is a significant movement for the creation of the state and it is not yet even de facto independent. In fact, for Palestine, Transnistria and co the existing Category:Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states would fit better. Proposed countries is a stage behind that I feel. Also, move to Category:Proposed sovereign states, along with the subcategories, (since that is what is meant) to avoid any possible confusion. Munci (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm convinced by the comments made on the category talk page by User:Xeeron: "This is just to vague. What is a valid proposal? When does a state stop being a proposed state, e.g. Israel was proposed at some point, and now is a 'real' state. Is it still a proposed one? How to differentiate between secessionist movements, unification movements and pure speculation by commentators? Wanna-be micro states? All in all, this category does not make a lot of sense." I couldn't put it better. (Note: I created the subcategories, partially in an attempt to provoke debate on this. Whatever happens to this category should be applied to the subcategories.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is clearly not a proposed state any more because it's gone past the proposal stage and into the implementation stage; it's both de jure and de facto independent. Micronations have their own category and have never been in this category anyway. I doubt Cornwall is appropriate to this category either because there is no significant independence movement for them - only autonomy. Munci (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But categories typically do not distinguish between past and current status. If someone was once an ice hockey player, they are forever categorized as an ice hockey player. If a country was once a proposed country, it would have to forever be categorized as one under the normal practices of categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk)
Delete. Per my reasoning already quoted above by Good Ol'factory. --Xeeron (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments made - too speculative and POV Mayumashu (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list for deletion along with the sub-categories by continent. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still support its deletion along with all sub categories. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator and sole editor of the subcategories, so if this category is deleted, I can just have the subcategories speedily deleted. This was brought to CFD immediately after the subcategories were created, which is why it was brought to the nominator's attention. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:03, 22 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It seems to be similar situation as we have with Category:Transport and climate change. Although this category may have a purpose, right now the common nominator for the articles in this category(except The Hype about Hydrogen) is that some countries have combined ministries dealing with energy and climate change both. These articles already well classified into better category trees. Beagel (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Intersection category by banned user Mac/Nopetro that is better deleted in favour existing, more coherent category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:51, 10 July 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.
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. A new "power" subcategory can be created if desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. For the clarification and to be inline with the name of the main article (Solar thermal energy) in this category. Beagel (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beagel, elsewhere we've discussed making Category:Solar power the top level category for power produced from the sun by humans, with Category:Solar energy a level above, perhaps including articles and sub-cats on physical characteristics of the sun's energy. If so, I'm wondering if you'd be open to renaming to Category:Solar thermal power? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with this. If this helps to make the category tree more logical, I will support your proposal. Beagel (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated, without prejudice to a new sub-cat for solar thermal power. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:21, 21 July 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.
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 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. On the surface this category sounds like it might serve a purpose. However when you look at the contents, it seems to be another way to classify articles already well classified into better category trees. Also meets OC small. If you drop hybrids since electric vehicles covers them, so we only have 3 articles. Having said that, I'm open to suggestions. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The topic is well covered by existing category trees and this category does not have any added-value for organizing articles in this field. Beagel (talk) 08:24, 9 July 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Here we have a main article, but the problem is that saying that something like Category:Economic bubbles or Category:Real estate bubbles are the result of speculation is speculation. While some of these may be, are they all? I suppose that there is some way to save this category, but I'm not convinced that we need to do that now. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the items in this category do not directly relate to speculation, though many of them relate to economic crises caused at least in part through speculation. However, the degree which they relate to speculation varies, and is highly POV topic ... and while I have my own POV on the matter, categories should not be used to convey any POV. There may be a case for sort of similarly-named category which focuses tightly on the technical aspects of speculation, rather than being used as commentary on economic crises ... but so far the only articles I can see which belong there are speculation, Speculative attack, short (finance) and long (finance). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping needs clear inclusion guidelines otherwise gambling falls under the umbrella. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep The main article Speculation is quite clear as to the definition of speculation in the financial world as well as how its subcats belong here. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 July 2010
Looking at other cats in the surrounding hierarchy, "Financial" is used for banking etc while "economic" also encompasses real estate, food prices etc. So they should probably both remain, with explanation of purpose on the category pages. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and unnecessary; no need to merge as the contents are sufficiently well categorised already. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:00, 21 July 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:Roman archaeological sites in Greece[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. This is part of a deeply developed tree, so a wider nomination may be in order. Also, I'm removing the target category from the Category:Archaeological sites in Greece tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge as a duplicate of existing category. Pichpich (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Where it is said that every 'Roman site' is a 'Roman archaelogical site' or vise versa? This category is a correctly named subcat of Category:Archaeological sites in Greece by period with siblings of the same naming pattern. It appears there are two different categories here, maybe with a subcat relationship, but separate regardless. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. Who identified the sites as Roman? Archaeologists. These cats are the same. "Archaeological site" does not imply a dig or excavation. Category:Roman sites is part of two Archaeological Sites head categories. The category Roman sites and all its subcats omit the word "archaeological", but it is understood. So do a lot of other subcats of Category:Archaeological sites by culture. Within Category:Archaeological sites by country the general convention seems to be to omit "archaeological" once the category gets down to the level of the ancient culture. I suggest a group nomination is needed to remove that word from the subcats of Category:Archaeological sites in Greece by period. There may be others. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:33, 21 July 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:Mississippi State Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs[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:reverse merge, based on this and the other discussion.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lady Bulldogs are still Bulldogs, so I would think the merger should be this way Mayumashu (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepReverse merge. This was the subject of a recent CfD discussion where we agreed to use both gender-defining team names.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So reverse merge then, right? Mayumashu (talk) 00:25, 12 July 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:Television shows set in San Francisco[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.
It seems like there needs to be a category named SF, CA. If someone wants to make a Bay Area category that's a separate issue from this nomination. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if the contents of this category are really the area one then that is how it should be renamed. Not to the city/county and then have to clean stuff out of it. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about one entry out of 58. Hardly a Herculean task. Is it really necessary to get all angsty about it? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:00, 9 July 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.
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:Emergency road services to match container category; otherwise no consensus. Could very easily have a different result if renominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't see keeping this right now since we don't have an article on emergency road service and two of the three articles are for vehicle recovery which I think is a different animal. If someone can find articles that would fit, I think it needs renaming, maybe to Category:Emergency road services? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added an article. But I still say it's a Delete per nom and WP:OC#TRIVIAL. The absence of a true main article is to me a good indication of how this just doesn't come together as a coherent and meaningful category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep It now has 18 articles (one main one) and one subcat. With a little more work, I expect it would have more. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oy, this is not good. The articles that are included are .... well, as Shawn says, this just doesn't come together as a coherent category. Spare tire? Help. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vehicle recovery has issues as I have never heard it used in the US. To someone in the US it is more likely to refer to an action by a repo man. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 22 July 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 20#Category:DIY spaces. — ξxplicit 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)