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:Rename. doping is a disamiguation page, so this category name is highly ambiguous. It only covers doping in sports, not doping in semiconductors, or construction materials, etc. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2012 (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: Probably speedily. A cat page that is trying to be a dab page! Note that there is a Wold Newton dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily as described. I see no potential for this as a category. Mangoe (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the template I couldn't seem to find. keep, as an empty place, as per the disambiguation template - to avoid two mostly unrelated topic being confused for each other.Oranjblud (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a dab-category page for a family and a place. The family is adequately populated. I am dubious as to whether the place is big enough to warrant having a category for its three articles, but it does not seem wholly objewctionable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Category:Wold Newton family (literature) should be watched because of its tendency to attract fancruft. I removed a few members, but it probably could use more pruning. - Eureka Lott 02:00, 30 August 2012 (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:Rename. Of the 25 entries in this category 23 are groups playing this music genre. The remaining two are an album and an individual musician. __meco (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2012 (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:Ancient Greek 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No others in Category:Ancient Greek sites by country have a sub-cat called "archaeological", and neither category explains what the intended difference was (if any). I'm open to a reverse merge (probably leaving a redirect) to avoid ambiguity. – FayenaticLondon 11:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I wonder if it is really true that all archeological sites in Crete are ancient in origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (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.
Delete – I'm sure we've deleted something very like this before. Cat by shared naming characteristic. Oculi (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while this might make a bad list topic, it definitely cannot possibly be a category.(mercurywoodrose)99.35.50.219 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2012 (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.
Merge to -category:Klingon language. This is an invented language, so that it is unlikely that this can ever be adequately populated. I appreciate the other CFD is quite recent, but we do not need to slit the parent until it is much better populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't point to the July 2011 CfD because it was recent, but because of its arguments to keep this category. There is no need to repeat those arguments here; however, there is a need to produce new arguments for the category's deletion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but not the issue. My point is that (while we don't really need either) renaming/expanding Category:Klingon-language operas into Category:Klingon literature would be much better than keeping the Klingon-language operas, for which some folks are voting for. You may vote to rename instead of just "Keep" or "Upmerge". tahcchat 00:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an Category:Operas by language, a long established and very useful category tree. The same applies to all the other "rare" language operas including Category:Sanskrit-language operas. As I said at the previous CfD, categories exist to help the reader. You want to see what languages operas have been written in? Go to Category:Operas by language and it's all there at a glance including an idea of the relative frequency of a particular language's use for that medium. Even more importantly, you can see that operas have been written in a surprising number of languages, including "dead" ones, "obscure" ones (see Kuratov) and "invented" ones. The "only one" argument doesn't really hold any water either. For the same reader-oriented reason we categorize operas by language of the libretto, we categorize them by their composer. Hence Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven. It has one member, Fidelio, and there will never be another. Are you going to argue for that category system to be abolished too so the reader can no longer see at a glance the array of composers who have written operas, and what those operas are? Actually per BEANS, I probably shouldn't have asked that. Upmerging or deleting Category:Klingon-language operas destroys the usefulness of the Category:Operas by language by making it incomplete. So far no one has named a single benefit to our readers that would result from merging/deleting. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore, as I read the whole argument, I felt that this was a needless category until reading the argument directly above and I wholeheartedly think it should be kept. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well it looks like User:Voceditenore said what I was going to say, and then some : ) - jc37 19:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I wrote last time and I don't see that anything has changed since then: "Keep Aside from the many excellent arguments put above by Voceditenore etc, it's worth pointing out that Klingon (whatever you or I may think about it) is in some ways a more alive language than the kind of Italian used in, say, the libretti of Handel's operas. The one opera written in it clearly has responded on an artistic level to the aural qualities of this (created) language, and it is far from unlikely, given the position of the concept of opera in the language's (created) mythology, that this will be the end of the matter. This category is a useful tool, and that should be the end of matter". almost-instinct 12:02, 8 September 2012 (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.