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) 19:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per past consensus against categories for individual radio stations; except for the station itself, everything else in here is an individual personality who happens to have worked for the station (violating WP:OCAT as a "performer by performance" category.) The category had also, mysteriously, been added to our article on a genre of music that happens to fit into the station's format — which is an even more inappropriate use of an individual radio station category than the personalities are. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This station does not appear to warrant a seperate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 20 September 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:Federal electoral districts by country[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I don't think the category is meaningful. There are a few "federal district" categories and they are necessary in countries where the same place could be both a federal and a state/provincial district. But that doesn't constitute a particularly meaningful bond between federal districts in Mexico and federal districts in Germany. I don't expect any reader would actually search for that category. Pichpich (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially inclined to keep on the basis that we should have a parent to group the various categories for elective seats in federal legislatures — but upon further investigation, this category in fact serves only to tie together the three countries whose relevant categories happen to be using "federal electoral district" as their particular naming format. This is really just an WP:OCAT by shared naming characteristic, because they're not actually a separate type of thing from, say, Category:United States congressional districts or Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies — it's just a different term for what's otherwise the same thing: individual districts which elect representatives to the federal legislature. A broader category for federal legislative districts, regardless of naming format, might be warranted — but as currently constituted, this category indeed isn't necessary at all. Delete, or merge into a new category that would be more broadly inclusive of other countries. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I probably should have mentioned the existence of the parent category Category:Constituencies by country which I think is the right classification scheme. Pichpich (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a useful category as no polity on earth has the same political system.Curb Chain (talk) 05:38, 20 September 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.
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 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:New file system introduced on Linux[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) 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not a useful category, and is currently empty. Mindmatrix 19:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even clear that it's a category - the page just appears to be asserting that "[a] New file system has been introduced on Linux", which is either a not-very-interesting statement (several file systems first appeared on Linux), or perhaps promoting a particular new file system. Guy Harris (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an empty category with no obvious use value. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 19 September 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:Historical school buildings in Ohio[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) 19:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These are all in Category:Schools on the National Register of Historic Places in Ohio so this is basically a parallel listing. I did add that category to some schools that were listed here and lacked it, even though they are on the NRHP listing. Doing so removed those schools from this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 19 September 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.
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) 17:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More thin-slicing by User:Stefanomione. We already have Stefanomione’s Category:Works about countries, which covers most things these 1-, 2-, or 3-subcategory categories include. For the "Media developed in" subcategories, there are already category trees that suffice.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your persistence in this. This seems to be another remnant of the Media by foo/foo by medium twin structure that Stefanomione had put in place. Now, while example Category:United States by medium is currently just an underpopulated container for Category:Works about the United States, it could include Category:American films and the like, which are not necessarily "about" the U.S. Is that a problem? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. It makes me wonder if Stefanomione had intended the Country by medium structure as a way to group works by a foo-nationality, works about a foo-country, and possibly other things, into container cats. Anyway, support. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Both confusing and unnecessary. Pichpich (talk) 14:48, 24 September 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.
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) 17:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category has been empty for nearly a month with no attempts to re-populate despite a contested deletion of it being speedied as empty. The user who requested the speedy deletion wrote in the edit summary: "propose deletion as duplicate of Category:People by region in country - previous contents now moved there." A discussion followed at that user's talk page. Any merits of the category notwithstanding, the category can simply be recreated when there are contents to populate it with. There is no need for it to exist as an empty category waiting for consensus on how it should be used. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, we have Category:Serbian people by region which, while empty (only a child category), sounds like it should be there, not in Category:People by region in country, where it is currently. So either the Serbian cat needs to be renamed, or it needs to be moved, thus making the nationality and region cat not empty. The Serbian is the only Fooian by region category, and if it is deleted or renamed, this category will indeed be empty and (currently) not needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Serbian example is clear using Serbian as an ethnicity. Nationality should be limited to when someones national allegiance is considered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonrelational intersectionCurb Chain (talk) 05:39, 20 September 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:Eurovision Song Contest commentators[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) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcatergorization by performance. Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ay-yi-yi. Once we start categorizing people by event they have commentated at, we're in for some mass overcategorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 22 September 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 football infoboxes[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) 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete The category is defined by something that we should avoid doing. Article infoboxes should stay in article space, userspace templates should stay in userspace. Even if we tolerate this exception (not that I think we should), this category wouldn't be helpful for collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less uselessCurb Chain (talk) 05:40, 20 September 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.
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) 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories created by User:Stefanomione don't help navigation. Their subcategories may be useful, but having a category that is supposed to be specific be this broad helps no one.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to make Category:Works about events a subcat of Category:Works by topic, so as to group topics that are "events." But I've learned to be leery about new categorization schemes by Stefanomione and I would support a merge, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 19 September 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.
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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:20, 22 September 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:The John F. Kennedy assassination by medium[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:20, 22 September 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.
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/Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other "Works about" categories. I'd also remove the newspapers; while what they did mattered in the hurricane's aftermath, being about Katrina is not defining for the newspapers per se.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge per nom. And I don't see any newspapers, so the nominator must've already done the clean up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see they are. Another remnant of the media/creative works confusion that Stefanomione unwittingly created. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 20 September 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.
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) 17:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "non-human" bit is a bit pedantic. Possibly we could make mention of this criterion in the category page, but it seems a bit unnecessary for the category title? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:56, 19 September 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.
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) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or possibly rename. What is this category? Simply any geographic or political entity whose name includes or has included a construction of "Kosovo"? Since there's no intro text or main article, I can't tell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Justin, thank you for bringing this to my attention and believe me - I had forgotten I even created it!!! The idea behind it was this: Kosovo - nominally that is - has existed in different capacities and geographical outlines for the past millennium and this includes absent periods where the name was not used at all. To make matters more interesting, today it literally has a double-life, 80-85 states recognising the self-declared republic, five municipalities controlled by a minority opposing the sovereign state and three of them adjoining in the far north where they had hitherto functioned outside of the capital's command. Recent events around Jarinje have influenced things as we keep watching to see what is happening but the most dramatic statistic is that the international presence remains the leading authority and although most of that presence favours the state, how the outside world views them is all the more controversial! This is why Republic of Kosovo and pure Kosovo were split into two articles. I believe I can produce an introductory paragraph if it will help. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has got to be a better name. Not that I know what it might be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:18, 22 September 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.
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) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:At the very least rename according to WP:CAPS, but maybe there's a better name for this mix of autonomous and unrecognized sub-governments...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sounds fine with me, what a mess there is in kosovo and the wikipedia articles about it. James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:38, 19 September 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.
