Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 11 July 13 >

July 12[edit]

Category:Kefalonia and Ithaca Prefecture[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Kefallinia Prefecture has been abolished, and the islands of Kefalonia and Ithaca have become administratively separated. No reason for these categories to exist any more. Constantine ✍ 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume that the land itself, and the administrative functions, still exist so this probably should be a rename or merge to another prefecture. The people certainly still exist and need to be in a category somewhere, rather than deleted. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people and the land exist, and have their own categories. The way I see it, this category had a meaning as long as the prefecture uniting the two islands existed, and even then, it was essentially only there as a parent category to Category:Kefalonia and Category:Ithaca and the respective "People from" categories. The categorization "people by prefecture" in the cases of some island prefectures is a rather artificial convention deriving from Wikipedia's system: in real life, no one would say "I come from Kefalonia Prefecture" when in fact he/she comes from Ithaca. In common usage, there's the Ionian Islands as a geographical/cultural entity and then each island separately, and this is pretty much what the new administrative division is about as well. Now the prefecture has been abolished, the category (not the prefecture article) is rather redundant. Constantine ✍ 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my part of the world so I accept what you say. The proper(?) way to do it would be to move all the relevant contents to their new location and then ask to delete two empty (and redundant) categories. I see Category:People from Kefalonia and Ithaca Prefecture is already empty so I have no problem with that being deleted straightaway. Is there any historical aspect of this that we should need a category for 'former prefectures'? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since all prefectures have been abolished/renamed to peripheral units (i.e. the prefectures are all historical entities now), and the prefecture article already belongs to Category:Prefectures of Greece, there's no need to do anything. The only content other than the prefecture article in Category:Kefalonia and Ithaca Prefecture is a navbox which refers to the former municipal division of the prefecture (post the 1997 reforms). I am not sure there is any purpose, even historical, to keep it around. Constantine ✍ 10:15, 14 July 2011 (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:Indonesian Government[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Images of the government of Indonesia. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indonesian Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I haven't any idea what should be done with this category. Its title fails to differentiate its scope from Category:Government of Indonesia or to identify that it is an image category. I considered proposing an upmerge to Category:Government of Indonesia, but decided against it since it would flood the high-level category with these files. Another idea is to merge it to Category:Images of Indonesia, but these logos and images of currency are not exactly images "of Indonesia". Any suggestions would be welcome. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment based on how we use the of in other cats, I would assume that images of Indonesia means images that are from/belong to in some sense or relate to Indonesia. They do not have to be of the country per se. On the other hand we could just rename this to Category:Images of the government of Indonesia. That might work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2011 (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:Wikipedians with a shoutbox tool[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with a shoutbox tool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This user category is intended to group together users who use Template:Shoutbox – in fact, it's a category of users who substituted the template before July 2009, while it still contained the user category code – and is, therefore, a category of Wikipedians by template use. There is a strong precedent for deleting such categories as they fail to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration: there is no readily apparent reason to seek out users who use Template:Shoutbox. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the category is a recreation of one that was deleted per a 2009 CFD discussion. Since the original discussion involved only three editors (including the nominator), I thought it might be better to renominate rather than speedy delete (criterion G4) it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2011 (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.

Wrongfully accused 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Wrongly accused people
  • Delete Category:Exonerated criminal suspects
  • Delete Category:Exonerated espionage suspects
  • Delete Category:Exonerated terrorism suspects
  • Nominators rationale. These categories suffer excessively from both POV problems and unclear inclusion criteria. To say someone was "wrongfully" accused is a very, very strong value judgement. I do not think it is justified. What exonerated means is difficult to say, and it is not clearly defined. In the terrorism section it mentions people later found innocent. Well the problem is that at least under many judicial systems in a terrorism case finding someone not guilty (which is what it is actually phrased at) means that there was not enough evidence to convict. It does not mean there was no crime, and does not mean they were "wrongfully accused". There already exists a set of categories of overturned convictions, which are often what is in these categories. There we have a clear correspondence between what the category says and what actually happened. Here we have what amounts to a POV argument that because someone was found not guilty they have been "exonerated" and were "wrongfully accused". There is also Category:Parents exonerated of killing their children which is currently under discussion at another CfD. Also that category is an example of being so specialized compared to the categories we have here that it does not seem worth discussing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • JPL is quite right. Either delete or rename to "People found not guilty of..." Yes, there do exist people who were exonerated or wrongly accused of things, but the existence of a category makes it too easy for people to add articles according to their personal POV, particularly as category additions can't be watchlisted and can only be monitored manually, with a great deal more effort. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, fancy that, "People acquitted of X" is already a category tree! Just delete these, then. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Acquittal in most countries is not exoneration; there may be evidence against them but insufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt. The categories are liable to be misused two ways, either misunderstood as "proving people innocent", or stigmatising people by making mud stick without proof. This may be an unforgettable experience but it is not a defining characteristic. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are indeed unnecessary. For those who are primarily notable for having been "wrongly convicted" (and there are many), there is Category:Overturned convictions, which does the job without having the name opine about actual guilt or innocence, as these do. For more serious crimes, there is also the subcategories of Category:People acquitted of crimes, which also have judgment-neutral category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the most populated category seems to be "Exonerated terrorism suspects". Many of them have been held in prison on suspicion of involvement in terrorism before they found innocent or they won their habeas corpus in US courts. Sometimes there were hold up to 7-8 years on accusation of involvement in terrorism but they often never had a trial or charges at all but were then found to be innocent. So my question. It seems to me that this group would not fit into the from you suggested alternative categories. Any solution for that? IQinn (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am speaking about "Exonerated terrorism suspects" the category we discuss here. How do we deal with the people in that category. You might read my comment again. Sorry when i did not explain myself perfectly. In addition, for example if they won their habeas corpus in US court do they qualify for the from you suggested alternative categories? IQinn (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were these people not imprisoned because they were accused of terrorism and/or imprisoned extrajudicially by the United States? Being released after a habeas corpus hearing is not an exoneration—it is a finding that the government has insufficient evidence to continue to hold you. It says nothing about guilt or innocence. See my comment below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says that the original charge to be a Taliban or Al-Qaeda member was false. IQinn (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it means that the prosecution could not provide prima facie evidence that they were. There is a difference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is false. See below. IQinn (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment winning a Habeus Corpus hearing is not in anyway "exonneration". It is just showing the government has not formulated a specific charge, which in general would mean the person has not been accused of anything. It is hard to see how anyone can be exonerated of a charge that was never made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be false. Most of these prisoners are hold under the charge that they are members of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. That is the charge. In a habeas corpus the government needs to show evidence and needs to proof to the judge that this is true. A prisoner wins his habeas corpus when the judge decides that they are not Taliban or Al-Qaeda members. IQinn (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A prisoner "wins" a habeas corpus hearing if the judge decides the person is unjustly held. But winning the right to have a habeas corpus hearing is not an exoneration. It's a fine distinction that is being missed when someone just says "wins his habeas corpus". Wins what? The hearing itself or the right to have the hearing? I would also say that being released after a habeas corpus hearing is not necessarily an "exoneration". All it means was that there was insufficient evidence for the government to hold someone. The judge makes no determination of guilt or innocence. All he or she decides is if the preliminary evidence is sufficient to hold the prisoner. The determination of guilt or not-guilt comes at the trial phase of judicial proceedings, and if a prisoner is released after a habeas corpus hearing it means there was no trial. Even a trial can't "exonerate" anyone, since there a U.S. court cannot declare someone "innocent". It declares someone to be "not guilty", which is not quite the same thing in all circumstances. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree i am not speaking about winning the right to have a habeas corpus. I am speaking about the result of the individual cases in US court. These prisoner are accused of being Taliban or Al-Qaeda members and terrorist suspect, that is the charge. The judge decides if this is the case or not on individual basis. They only win when it is clear behind reasonable doubt that this is false. If a terrorist suspect wins his habeas corpus than they are "Exonerated terrorism suspects". So you have any idea of an alternative category if "Exonerated terrorism suspects" would be deleted? IQinn (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are released on habeas corpus you are not necessarily "exonerated". All it means is that the prosecution couldn't make out a prima facie case. It has nothing to do with proving anything beyond reasonable doubt. Prisoners never have to "prove" they are innocent, and certainly they do not do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Only prosecutors must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt at the trial phase. But not getting to that stage does not mean the person has necessarily been exonerated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means that the government could not prove their charge that the prisoner is a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. If jugde decides that there is no evidence than there is no evidence and if there is no evidences than they are not member of these terrorist organizations and they are presumed innocent. See more below. IQinn (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if there is no evidence provided it means that no evidence was provided. That can be for a number of reasons, including the fact that none may have existed. But there are also other possible reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the judge only decides if there is enough evidence to accuse them of being a member of said groups, he does not say they are not members of these groups absolutely. Winning a habeus corpus hearing is no more exoneration than being aquitted at trial is. In both these cases the determination is that the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt, which is very, very, very different than saying the person is absolutely not guilty. Calling either of these "exoneration" is an extreme POV position, designed to seek to malign those who brought the charges, and in no way in line with actually trying to advance a neutral point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your description is false. The judge decides if they are members of the Taliban or al-Qaeda or not, based on the charge and evidence the government provides. Resend court decisions have even gone so far that the government evidence does not need to prove that they are member of this organizations behind any doubt. One prisoner recently lost his habeas corpus because the judge decided that he is "more likely than not" a member of al-Qaeda. No evidence that proofs behind doubt is necessary to hold someone for the rest of his life in Guantanamo. On the other hand in other cases the judge decided that there is no evidence that they are members of al-Qaeda. If there is not evidence and the judge decided they are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban than they are not guilty of the charge of being a member of these terrorist organizations. Not to have a category at all for this group of people who have been wrongly accused and were wrongly imprisoned (sometimes for many many years) would be an even stronger extreme POV. IQinn (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how much you know about American law, but being released after a habeas corpus hearing is not the same as a determination of innocence. All it means is that the prosecution failed to present a prima facie case. It has nothing to do with either side proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am following these case for many years now and i think i am quite well in the subject. I doubt that you have followed these habeas corpus cases and that you know all the details of this set of new laws and chain of decisions that have been taken in recent years regarding this issue. It is exactly as i have explained. The judge decides based on the given evidences if the prisoner is member of the Taliban or al-Qaeda. People are innocent until proven guilty. If the government can not even proof that they are "more likely than not" members of these terrorist organisations than they are innocent. Full stop. I am quite sure now that you do not have special knowledge about these case. It is complicated but it is as i say. The were wrongly imprisoned because they were not members of the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Most of these prisoners were members of these organization but why shouldn't we have the decency to acknowledged that mistakes were made and that innocent people were falsely arrested and held in Guantanamo? How about a category then "Guantanamo prisoner who won there habeas corpus" How about that? IQinn (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are "quite sure", eh? Are you a lawyer, because—no offence intended, but—you don't sound like you really know what you are talking about. You seem to have the basics down, but what you seem somewhat off on the details and implications. As for categories, we already have Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released, which is a more neutrally-worded category for what you are looking for, perhaps. If you look around the category tree a bit, I think you'll find there are adequate categories without needing these ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would able to rebuttal the content issue related arguments if that would be the case and you would not have problems to answer the content issue related questions. It is always better to address the content issue instead of using ad hominem. Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released is not a more neutrally-worded category of "Guantanamo prisoner who won their habeas corpus". This suggestion does not address the issue and suggest that you do not understand the issue. Most of the released prisoner have been held their for a reason but their is a small group of people who have been wrongfully held. There seems to be no reason not to have a category for people who were wrongfully held and "Guantanamo prisoner who won their habeas corpus" seems to be the right category to address this issue. IQinn (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you repeatedly keep missing—and hence the issue of hominem becomes increasingly relevant—is that being released pursuant to a habeas corpus hearing is not a final determination of any issue one way or the other. All it means is that the prosecution did not present a prima facie case. The person is not declared innocent, or not guilty, or even wrongly held. He is simply released because there is no prima facie case against him. That may be because they were wrongfully accused of something, but there are also other reasons that it routinely occurs, such as the government not wanting to allow even a judge to view particular information that would otherwise serve as some evidence against the accused. When these subtleties are explained to you time and time and time again, and yet you still say those who explain it are wrong and that you understand the issue better than them all, well—I think one would expect an inquiry into your personal credentials rather than futilely re-hashing the substantive issue in question yet again. Frankly, I don't think I'll bother doing it again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i have explained to you over and over without any result and your replies show that you do not even have basic understanding about habeas corpus. "The person is not declared innocent, or not guilty, or even wrongly held" Well, the judge exactly decides on the question if the prisoner is wrongly held. That is what habeas corpus is all about. Dozens of prisoner won their habeas corpus and the judge decided that they are wrongly held. Anyway i give up explaining to you as it seems fruitless and it does not matter for the solution that i have brought forward. The category that i have suggested "Guantanamo prisoner who won there habeas corpus" is neutral as it does get rid of wrong or right or accused or whatever. It is a simply fact without judgement. Can we settle on that? IQinn (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand habeas corpus fairly well, my friend. It's right in the wheelhouse of where I have focused my academic career. I have written academic papers on the subject that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. "Guantanamo prisoner who won there [sic] habeas corpus"? Definitely not. In English, one does not win one's habeas corpus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: "Guantanamo prisoner who won their habeas corpus" One does not win one's habeas corpus seems to be an interesting opinion that is not supported by any reference. Why do the sources say they won their habeas corpus? Shall we go with the sources or with your unsupported opinion? Of course one wins his habeas corpus though some lose. The group who won was until now in the Category:Exonerated terrorism suspects and as this category will be deleted their seems to be no reason not to have "Guantanamo prisoner who won their habeas corpus" It is a NPOV that states a simple fact. Why hiding this fact and not providing a category for this group of people so our readers can easily identify this group? IQinn (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not proper English. You can win a habeas corpus petition, but not a habeas corpus. Habeas corpus itself is a writ and is therefore not something that is won. But honestly, given the sweeping generalizations that you have made about what you supposedly "know" about my level of knowledge, I'm not terribly interested in continuing a discussion with you, since it's obvious you think you know more than me or anyone else in this discussion. I'm quite happy with the other categories that currently exist. You seem not to be. That's where I'll leave things as far as I am concerned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...since it's obvious you think you know more than me or anyone else in this discussion." No i do not think that and i have never thought that.
Content issue: How about this one then: "Guantanamo prisoner who won their habeas corpus petition" Something else wrong with that suggestion? Can we settle for this? IQinn (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All four per perfectly sound and complete reasoning of John Pack Lambert. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2011 (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:Massachusetts city councillors[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts city councillors to Category:Massachusetts city council members
Propose renaming Category:Worcester, Massachusetts city councillors to Category:Worcester, Massachusetts city council members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following the rename of the parent category, all of the state level categories were renamed to use the common US name. Boston was an exception that was supported by a full CfR. I don't think that decision affects Massachusetts, but to be safe, I elected to bring this here and see if there is a reason to not change. In doing some reading, it appears that for Worcester, councillors make be correct usage. That could effect the decision on the state category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I think members of city council functions as a generic term. Even if in a particular city they are more often called city councilors, alderman, protecotrs of the good name, or any other unique title I think we can justify calling them members of the city council out of a general tendency to have parrelel titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (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:Member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to Category:Member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
Nominator's rationale: New name for org —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nominator's rationale. Bazonka (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (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:Organisation of the Islamic Conference[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Organisation of the Islamic Conference to Category:Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
Nominator's rationale: New name for the org —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nominator's rationale. Bazonka (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (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:BRIT Award winners[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:BRIT Award winners
Nominators rationale. In general we do not categorize people by award recieved. I counted the number of cats the first person in this category is in, and it came to 27 which just seems excessive. Beyond this we already have a list of BRIT Award winners, so I do not see why we need a category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I might still agree that this is WP:OC, there are a couple of problems with your deletion rationale, I believe. "The first person in this category" is 50 Cent. Counting the number of categories on his bio article is not a valid reason to delete this one, even if it is 27. As for the statement "in general we do not categorize people by award received", the parent Category:Music award winners shows quite a lot of categories, in the music field alone. WP:OC#AWARD allows for only a "few exceptions" to its preference for lists over categories, and the question should be, it seems to me, are the Brit Awards defining enough to be such an exception? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this was an example of starting somewhere. I had not checked out Category:Music awards. The fact that that cat has 32 subcats probably indicates a general disregard for OC rules. There is no indication in the overcategorization rules why we have any exception to the award rule, and even more annoyingly no attempt to explain any guideline for an exception. I have seen various attempts to work out an exception to the no award cat rules, but none seem to have gotten a consensus behind them. My main argument here is we have a list already that does the same thing as this category, and so there is no reason to keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – these are national, prestigious, highly publicised annual awards, certainly defining. Occuli (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2011 (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:Media by time period of setting[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 current contents, create separate if necessary. On investigation there may be a distinction intended by the category names but the contents ignore it. Once merged a separate category can be populated per the original intention. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Media by time period of setting to Category:Media by period
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Is there a distinction in meaning? Goustien (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a distinction. Media by time period of setting has things like media by century. So we categorize things by what century they are set in. In the other case we have categores like Historiacal novels set in anceitn Rome, Napoleonic France and so forth. On the other hand I am not convinced this is a useful difference.
  • Merge As I said there is a small difference, but not a useful one so it should probably all be grouped into Category:Media by period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, one is for the date of creation, the other for the date in the story. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frayentic you might be right in principal. However everything in Category:Media by period is there based on the setting/subject, so its actual use would suggest that all that material should go into Category:Media by time period of setting. Beyond this Category:History books by period would suggest it should have subcategories, like maybe Category:histories of the 1790s or Category:Histories of the Napoleonic wars or Category:Histories of pre-modern China, but instead it just has to articles in it, so its name/reason for being are hard to determine. As these categories are used they are the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2011 (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:American Roman Catholic religious writers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American Roman Catholic religious writers to Category:American Roman Catholic writers
Nominator's rationale: Not all the members of the category write religiously-themed works; there is no "American Roman Catholic writers" category for the ones that don't; the category in question is a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic writers, not "American Roman Catholic writers" or "Roman Catholic religious writers." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. A writer's religious affiliation is notable when s/he writes on religious themes; Category:American religious writers indicates it is for authors of "religious content" and Category:Christian writers is intended for "those who write or wrote commentary on Christian themes." The number of writers who profess and/or practice religion is so vast as to render the category tree undefining if generalized.- choster (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with Category:Christian writers is that it's a subcat both of Category:Writers by religion, which categorizes people by their religion and their profession, and of Category:Religious writers, which has to do with the subject of their writings. Not all of its members write on religious subjects. The same is true here: a number of members of Category:American Roman Catholic religious writers category do not write on religious themes. In essence, what we must decide here is whether it is preferable to keep the category as is and remove the members who do not fit (such as Mary Higgins Clark, Joyce Kilmer, John D. Fitzgerald, and Jean Kerr), meaning that we would not have a category for American Catholic writers - or, change the scope of the category to include all American Catholic writers. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The only way we justify creating a triple intersection of this is when we limit it to people who focus on religion in their writting. In fact this should be limited to people who focus on Roman Catholicism. A Roman Catholic who writes about Hinduism does not belong in this category. The category is appropriately named, it is just at times misused. Personally I think we maybe should get rid of Category:Writers by religion. Even there the idea is that it is supposed to be classifying writers who focus primarily on religion topics by the religion they belong to, but people get confused and misuse it as a blanket invite to link any writer with their religion, how ever little their religion and their work really intersect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There is no Category:Roman Catholic religious writers so it is not part of any established tree. Occuli (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you look at Category:American Latter Day Saint writers the clearly spelled out rule there is that they need to be people who write in inherently Latter-day Saint ways, they can not just be Latter Day Saints who happen to write. So even if we rename the category we would still have to clean it out. The probelm is if we rename it we will make it more likely that people who do not belong here will be put back in. When a religion and profession intersection is created it should be limited to people whose practice of that profession is inherently influenced by their religion. Category:American Jewish writers does not follow this rule, but since being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion, the rules for categorizing people as Jews are different. Even at that there are a lot of people said to be Jews in their cats with no mention of being Jewish in the article, and these people should either has references to their Jewishness added to the article or be removed from the Jewish cats, but that is an issue. On the issue of parent categories there is a category Category:American religious writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the Roman Catholic cat is a direct child of Category:American Christian writers, which is also a direct parent of Category:American Latter Day Saint writers. The fact that people think that we should use Category:Roman Catholic writers for writers whose religion does not enter into their writing shows to me we need to keep the current title to avoid misuse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and nominate the others; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 4#Category:American Roman Catholic writers which resulted in the "religious" being inserted. Occuli then pointed out that a grand-parent is Category:American religious writers. (BTW, it has since been pruned; I just checked that all the current contents are writers on religion). - Fayenatic (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a larger discussion of all these categories really is needed to establish consistency, since this affects the entire Category:Writers by religion tree, including but not limited to the massive Category:Christian writers, Category:Muslim writers, Category:Roman Catholic writers and their subcats. I've done one of those giant all-category nominations before, but it was a pain - you want to handle this one? :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 14 July 2011 (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:GameCube action-adventure games[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GameCube action-adventure games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any particular reason why this category has to be kept. Postwar (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (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:Redirects from EPs[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary split from Category:Redirects from albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 12 July 2011 (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:Wikipedians with sense of humor[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, with creator's consent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with sense of humor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a 'joke' user category that does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. User categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices, which is what this category is since there is no encyclopedic benefit to creating and maintaining a grouping of users who declare that they have a sense of humor. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear violation of wikipedia category rules. By the way, is there a way to block users from creating categories?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, apart from making a community decision that the editor cannot create categories. But there is no way to mechanically prevent it without blocking their ability to edit any other page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like debate leading to future censorhip, limit free will and chicane against good faith, but mistaking users. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2011 (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:Asian poets[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian poets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no categorization scheme within Category:Poets for poets by continent, and there is no need for one. All of the articles in the category are also in a subcategory of Category:Poets by nationality, so this category can be deleted without any loss of information. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the points made, if we wanted to group poets in supra-national groupins, it would not make sense to mix Japnese and Israeli poets together as this cat does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poets by nationality is sufficient. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (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:Cricketers who fought in the First World War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cricketers who fought in the First World War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection: although each of the two traits – 'cricketer' and 'fought in World War I' – is defining by itself, there is no connection between the two traits that would justify intersecting the two. All of the articles appear to be in a {Nationality} cricketers category, so all that's left is to remove this category and the appropriate subcategory of Category:Military personnel of World War I. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining, and then upmerge into the appropriate sub cat. Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a non-trivial intersection. The history of cricket, especially the Golden Age of cricket is deeply intertwined with the First World War. Explicit calls for cricketers to enlist were common and use of these cricketers as propaganda to encourage greater enlistment was also common. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've verged toward keeping due to the important part WWI played in the history of cricket, particularly English cricket, where whole county teams were decimated and the struggle it put on English cricket following the war is historically notable. Also there's some of the above rationale by Mattingbgn as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The two 'keep' comments above lead me to think that a List of cricketers who fought in World War I (similar to List of England rugby union footballers killed in the World Wars or List of international rugby union players killed in action during the First World War) might be needed, but a category still seems to be overcategorization. After all, the First World War may have been significant in the history of cricket – or English cricket, at least – but cricket was not especially significant in the context of the First World War (though perhaps more than other sports-related occupations). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because there is some interest in the intersection does not mean a category is worthwhile. The "there was pressure on criket players to join the fighting" assumes that these people were criket players at the time of the war. While that may be the intent, the general way this will work is anyone who both fought in the war and played criket will be included, even if they retired from criket before the war or did not take it up until after.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of cricketers (I hesitate to say all, but that may well be the case) playing cricket before they fought in the war. If you know of a cricketer who fought in the war before he began playing or after he retired, I'd be interested to hear. And, by the way, spelling cricket wrong, not once but four times, does not lend much substance to your opinion. IgnorantArmies?! 11:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick Potbury's first-class cricket career was over 32 years before the start of the First World War, but he still signed up. Johnlp (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and his follow-up comments. A separate list that is well-cited seems to be a good first step. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Reluncantly. It is an interesting intersection, but not one worthy of its own category: a list, and membership of Category:Military personnel of World War I and Category:Fooian cricketers seems sufficient. Harrias talk 19:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Broadly I'm in agreement that this is a Delete, but I would like to see a decent interval before the axe falls so that a list can be created, because I think that would be interesting. There might also, with a list, be room for a section about those who didn't serve and those whose record in some instances came under adverse comment, such as Jack Hobbs. Johnlp (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (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.

Organizations in North, South America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organizations of North America and Category:Organizations of South American can be merged into Category:Organizations based in North America and Category:Organizations based in South America: “based in” is the standard format. Hugo999 (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying an organization is "of" somewhere is problematic because some organizaitons have significant operations in 10 or more countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete. 18:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
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:Wikipedians in Latin America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in Latin America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category is redundant to the other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians in the Americas. Unlike, say, Category:Wikipedians in South America and Category:Wikipedians in Central America, which subdivide Category:Wikipedians by location by geographic region, this category subdivides by cultural region (an equivalent category would be Category:Wikipedians in Anglo-America). Categorization by cultural region can be useful for articles and other content pages, but I do not think it is a particularly useful way of categorizing users by place of residence.
With two exceptions – User:Valpictureuser (inactive since 2005) and User:Danteferno (self-identifies on user page as being in Belize) – all of the subcategories and user pages are already in more specific location categories. Thus, the category can be deleted with the loss of very little information. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Latin America additionally has difficult definitions. By many definitions Belize as a historic part of the British Empire does not count as Latin America, but of course the issue is not clear cut. We should stick with the more neutral and geographical schema we currently use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2011 (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:Wikipedians in Great Britian and not the European Union which is some deluded failed superstate which is ruining the lives of millions of European peoples[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. Neutralitytalk 18:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in Great Britian and not the European Union which is some deluded failed superstate which is ruining the lives of millions of European peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: By decree of the most glorious and effervescent European Council, y'all are hereby directed to remove from your servers all content which maligns the European Union, its aims and activities or its personnel. Oh, also, user categories should not group users by dislikes or by support for or opposition to an issue or organization. Kudos for creativity, though. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please delete quickly\speedy delete. No need for discussion here; this is a troll creation/post.Curb Chain (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award can it at least get a gong for the longest cat name? And shouldn't that be the "Ineffable European Council"? Who needs a fizzy council? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while I understand the thinking behind giving an award, doing so will just cause someone else to come up with an even long category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never noticed that someone had created the category! I placed it on my userpage as a humorous redlinked alternative to the category telling me I was in the European Union, which if people were in any doubt is an organisation I thoroughly dislike!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (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:Beijing Summer Palace[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beijing Summer Palace to Category:Summer Palace (Beijing)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Summer Palace, but I assume the current name was chosen because there is more than one "Summer Palace". If we are going to disambiguate the category it should be "Summer Palace (Beijing)", since no one calls this the "Beijing Summer Palace". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are additional difficulties with the name, such as the other Summer Palace in Beijing (Old Summer Palace) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, though the one that is the subject of this category no doubt is the primary meaning of "Summer Palace", both within Beijing and throughout the world, so I think we can probably get away with the proposed name. It at least would probably be better than Category:Summer Palace, which would match the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2011 (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:-ismist Recordings 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: Withdrawn by nominator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:-ismist Recordings albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Partial oppose, I'm not really to worried about this, bnut it does seem that -ismist Recordings (formerly -ism Recordings are notable. Rich Farmbrough, 12:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I made them a stub. :) Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 12 July 2011 (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:Albums recorded at the Sands[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums recorded at the Sands to Category:Albums recorded at the Sands Hotel
Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 12 July 2011 (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:Albums recorded at the London House[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums recorded at the London House to Category:Albums recorded at The London House, Chicago
Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:50, 12 July 2011 (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:Religion in Ancient history[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: Speedy rename C2A/B. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religion in Ancient history to Category:Religion in ancient history
Nominator's rationale: "Ancient" is not a proper noun and thus should not be capitalized. InverseHypercube 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. Useful category as part of Category:History of religion by period. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (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:Virgin Steele[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category:Virgin Steele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All easily linked between infoboxes and a footer template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category and what koavf says its true. All links are in the Virgin Steele article. But there is no footer template. Maybe we could delete this category when someone creates a footer template.--Neo139 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2011 (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/2011_July_12&oldid=1141928076"