Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 2

< December 1	December 3 >

December 2[edit]

Category:Bristolians who attended Oxbridge[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Overcategorization. Unnecessary categorization. The categories can be separated into People from Bristol and Alumni of any Oxbridge University, both of which exist. Hence Delete.--WriterListener 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Clear OCAT Johnbod 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for overcategorization. Doczilla 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mortal Kombat locations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was upmerged the one article in the one sub-category. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Now has just one subcategory, and no articles of its own, and the two remaining articles in the subcategory probably have a few days left. Judgesurreal777 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Video game locations and Category:Mortal Kombat. In case either of the remaining articles in the subcat should survive AFD they need to be in those category structures. Otto4711 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Otto. Doczilla (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:S.C.I.F.I. World[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a programming block on a TV network. The material is appropriately interlinked. Otto4711 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

No links.
Contains only 1 article, S.C.I.F.I. World and 1 image, Image:S.C.I.F.I. World.PNG, Image:S.C.I.F.I. World.PNG is already on S.C.I.F.I. World.

Wikipedian 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Canadian newspaper reporters and correspondents[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep after nomination withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Canadian newspaper reporters and correspondents to Category:Canadian newspaper journalists

:Nominator's rationale: Merge, There's no meaningful distinction being made here, as far as I can see. However, the other subcategories here -- Columnists, Editors and Photojournalists -- should certainly stay as is. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC):Withdraw and speedily close if possible. As the nominator I'd like to withdraw my merge proposal, if that's possible, so as to move things alone. I see Cgingold (and others') point. Shawn in Montreal 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks to me like Category:Canadian newspaper journalists is serving as both a super-cat for the 4 sub-cats and a catch-all for those individuals who for one reason or another don't fit any of those sub-cats. "Reporters and correspondents" are as distinct a subset of journalists as are the other sub-cats, whereas "journalists" is a general term that embraces all of the different types. Cgingold 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cgingold. Doczilla 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason that this was created is that the parent Category:Reporters and correspondents was split off from Category:Journalists; upmerging would mean that we'd have to replace the category with Category:Canadian newspaper journalists and Category:Canadian reporters and correspondents, which would be simply redundant. The only reason this doesn't seem to be serving a distinct purpose is that it hasn't been fully populated — but this is a distinct subset of journalists, which keeps them separated from columnists, film reviewers, editorial page editors, radio anchors, and on and so forth. Keep and populate. Bearcat 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Districts of the Chachapoyas Province[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename, assuming that Doczilla meant "rename".... Bencherlite ^Talk 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Districts of the Chachapoyas Province to Category:Districts of Chachapoyas Province

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While use of "the" is the literal translation of the Spanish - most geographic regions have a "the" when refered to - normal English usage doesn't have "the" in this context. Carlossuarez46 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doczilla 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedian pilots[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy close, wrong forum. This is a WP:UCFD matter and I'll move it there. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian pilots to Category:Wikipedian aviators

Nominator's rationale: As with Category:Pilots, this category could refer to aviators or harbour pilots. I doubt anyone has used it for the latter, particularly given the "airplane pilot" userbox displayed on the category page, so I think it's safe to move the category's members with the assumption that they are aviators. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Coated Paper[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge to Category:Paper. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete found in the orphanage and not needed for the 3 articles categorized therein. Carlossuarez46 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all 3 of the articles on paper within it do indeed have descriptions that make it clear that they are coated papers. Category:Paper is not well-organized; would this (if renamed to Category:Coated papers) be a useful way of organizing papers? --Lquilter 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Paper products. There doesn't need to be a separate category at this point for coated papers and merging will keep the articles in the paper products tree (heh). I agree that the overal paper category structure needs work but this particular division doesn't strike me as being too terribly helpful. Otto4711 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Category:Paper, where the other types of paper (mostly) are. Category:Paper products is for things made out of paper. It's possible someone knowledgeable could bulk this category up from those two, but I think it isn't needed yet. However coated/uncoated is a standard division of types of paper, so no prejudice to recreation if deleted. Johnbod 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Paper. Doczilla (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Double reed organizations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. While the nomination was withdrawn, it seems worthwhile to validate this as a "keep" result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category only has one article, and seems unlikely to get any larger. Either delete or merge into some larger category, if one exists. Chromaticity 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is withdrawn. While I still think this is overcategorization, it is plainly obvious that the propensity to create virtually endless categories with the barest of distinctions is well-entrenched in Wikipedia. Forgive my intrusion; while I think this category is unnecessary, neither does it appear to be particularily harmful. As such, I withdraw the deletion request; could someone who understands how these things work do the appropriate paperwork? Chromaticity 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is part of a wider effort (which did not previously exist) to categorize music organizations not within the main category, but within a new subcategory Category:Music organizations by instrument. Like other music categories, such as Category:Jazz bassoonists, there will necessarily be few articles in a single category. But such logical categorization is useful to our readers and follows the music categorization guidelines strictly. Note to the editor who took the time to put in this "delete vote" not 90 seconds after the subcategory was created: in the future, try to look through the upper-level category and related articles to see how the new category operates before submitting a deletion proposal so "instantly." Best, Badagnani 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is a good way of sub-categorizing articles that would otherwise be much more difficult to navigate between within Category:Music organizations. It would be even more useful with another parent category, or mutual "see also" links to (e.g.) Category:Oboists, Category:Bassoonists, Category:Woodwind instruments or as appropriate. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per withdrawn nomination. Doczilla (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Disturbed members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disturbed members to Category:Disturbed (band) members

Propose renaming Category:Disturbed albums to Category:Disturbed (band) albums

Propose renaming Category:Disturbed songs to Category:Disturbed (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. To reduce ambiguity of the names. Otto4711 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion; seems like overcategorization to me. Chromaticity 18:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this is how band members, albums and songs are categorized (see category:Musicians by band, Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist), rather than in eponymous categories such as Category:Disturbed (which has recently been nominated for deletion itself on the usual precedents). Do not rename because the main article is at Disturbed and so no disambiguation is needed. Context is everything! Bencherlite ^Talk 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context is indeed important, which is why adding the word (band) as is often done for bands with ambiguous names (see Category:Asia (band) members, Category:Death (band) members, Category:Extreme (band) members and many other examples) to establish that these categories are in the context of a musical group is a good idea. Otto4711 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those names are needed since Asia, Death and Extreme don't point to Asia (band), Death (band) and Extreme (band) and there is a general aim to have categories match the name of the lead article. Here the article is Disturbed, not Disturbed (band) (which is a redirect). There is no ambiguity that requires "(band)" being added to the category. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Probably rename the article too, but a adjective creates ambiguity in categories even if it doesn't in the one word title (which is questionable imho) Johnbod 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't disambiguate unless we need to, Disturbed (band) is just a redirect to Disturbed ... which is how it ought to be since nothing else is named Disturbed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Doczilla (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename. I don't think matching the head article is that important here. I think it's only important if you can anticipate giving the same name to a category of articles with a different context. For example, Category:Asia members can be about countries, Category:Extreme members can be about digits, and Category:Death songs can be about funerary music. (By the way, we should take a look at Category:Television albums for the same reason.) But Category:Disturbed songs isn't likely to be about songs like "Crazy Train," because such a category would likely be named Category:Songs about mental illness.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Railway stations in Punjab[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Railway stations in Punjab (India), to match Punjab (India) and not Punjab (Pakistan). -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as (having checked) all five stations are in Punjab (India) and to match the parent categories Category:Railway stations in India and Category:Buildings and structures in Punjab (India). Bencherlite ^Talk 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Doczilla 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Wirral[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All articles have been moved to Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Merseyside which is the correct Area of Search so this category is now unnecessary. Suicidalhamster 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are you nominating for deletion or merge? Doczilla 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no longer necessary per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Articles with trivia sections from Decemeber 2007[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I made a spelling error when I added a {{trivia}} link to an article, and created this by accident. The correctly spelled category title has already been created. GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - empty, obvious typo, author request. You can tag the cat with {{db-author}} should something similar arise in future. Otto4711 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per author request - typo. JPG-GR 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Heterosexual writers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I've emptied this and I'm tempted to speedy. It's some strange POINTy thing I presume. It had Josephus, Tacitus, William Shakespeare and Ezekiel in it. Do we know Ezekiel's sexuality? Even if we did, the category makes as much sense as "right handed". Doc^g 13:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unusually enough, I agree with Doc. Heterosexuality is the (statistically-speaking) normative case. While it's more important a characteristic than handedness, a writer's sexual orientation would generally only be notable when it differs from the norm. --Ssbohio 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is most likely a point violation. Possibly heterosexual Stonewall Book Award winners, or just nominees, or something could be of interest but otherwise no.--T. Anthony 17:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:POINT and WP:OC as illegitimate categorization basd on sexuality. The encyclopedically legitimate category structures for LGBT writers do not necessitate the corresponding structure for straights. Otto4711 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Johnbod 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all there is a category for Category:American Christians, and Category:European Americans which fits at least 3 out of 4 americans a piece and Category:Israeli Jews which fits for about 4 out of 5 Israelis thus just because it is mainstream doesn't really count secondly a writer being LGBT is usually not notable for being LGBT if it is then a writer being heterosexual is notable for not being LGBT

For example there is a category for Category:African American writers and Category:Mexican American writers etc. but there is no category for Category:European American Writers

to sum it up there cases where there are categories that show that having a majority category for example Category:Israeli Jews yet at the same time for the category Category:American writers by ethnicity there is subcats for almost all ethnicities except for European Americans, this is reverse discrimination if you are going to divide American writers by ethnicity it should be done based off of all ethnicities

secondly there should be a category for Heterosexual writers it is reverse discrimination to say we are not going to make a category just because there is too much of a group

--Java7837 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply re Category:Israeli Jews below. Cgingold 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay literature actually exists as a distinct genre of literature that's actually studied for its own sake in the real world. There's no comparable social or literary phenomenon of heterosexual literature that's studied specifically because it was written by heterosexuals. This simply does not exist as a distinct literary genre — it's nothing more the sum total of all literature that isn't part of another genre that does actually exist. Bearcat 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there's a difference between discriminating between people for housing & jobs on the basis of attributes irrelevant to their ability to reside (!) or perform work or and discriminating between concepts. As applied to people in housing & jobs, discrimination is a bad thing. Distinguishing the substantive content of topics for an encyclopedia is rather a different kind of discrimination, more like "distinguishing" or "thinking". --Lquilter 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is "American Christians" is largely useful as a parent for specific groups of relevance. Although possibly it's no longer useful or being misused. Anyway it's not clear to me what this category can be a parent to that's useful. We have no article on Heterosexual literature or its subgenres. If you can reasonably create such a thing it could work as a category. Second Category:European American Writers would largely only be of use as a parent category. I think it's not a necessary parent for right now. We do have Category:Irish-American writers and Category:Italian-American writers so European descended writers are not ignored outright. I would not object to more categories of European-descended American writers either if you can show relevance. I think there might be such a thing as "Polish American literature" so that might be possible as a next example.--T. Anthony 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what this has to do with Israeli Jews. And I don't think this is discriminatory, either. It's just a question of overcategorization. I also don't believe this is the first time a Hetrosexual writers or artist category has come up and they have always been deleted, rather swiftly. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason we have Category:Israeli Jews is very simple -- and in fact, rather obvious, when you look at the bigger picture. In isolation it may seem pretty strange, but the crucial point is that Category:Israeli Jews is part of a large, well-established category structure, Category:Jews by country -- and we can't very well leave out Israeli Jews, in my humble opinion. Cgingold 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons that have already been given. This category clearly isn't necessary, and the whole business has a strong odor of WP:POINT. Cgingold 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearcut per WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey, how come the faggots get their own parade and stuff? Why isn't there a Straight Pride Day? If they have one, why can't we?" Because every day is already straight pride day. Delete. Oh, and by the way, even if this were kept, including William Shakespeare in it would be a POV assertion in light of the fact that his actual sexuality is disputed (not to mention unknowable, given that he's, like, dead and stuff.) Bearcat 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hope this cat was a joke.Baka man 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Bands with American and British members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Is the band's notability defined by the fact they have had members from both the UK and the US? I think this is overcategorization too. Lugnuts 13:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; yes. Delete as a trivial reason for a category. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial category. Doczilla 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can see a marginal rationale for this; I'm certain that some people think that having mixed American/British membership would call into question whether the band belongs in Category:American musical groups or Category:British musical groups. But the real answer to that, of course, is that you go by where the band is actually based...and on the rare occasion that it's still that unclear, there's no crime in applying two categories. Delete. Bearcat 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:White House weddings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper basis for categorization. "Got married at the White House" is a trivial basis for categorizing people who otherwise have nothing in common. Otto4711 13:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - I was going to argue, because if we have articles on weddings then their location -- especially if at the White House -- seems like a defining quality. But then I looked at the category which has 6 articles about people who happened to get married at the White House. So since people != weddings, this category is inaccurately titled, and if it were renamed to "People who got married at the White House" it would be overcat by a trivial or non-defining quality. So delete. (But if we ever have articles on weddings that were conducted at the WH then this category appears to me, now, to be reasonable.) --Lquilter 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per LQ & nom - these are all "people married at..." Johnbod 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Scuse me, let's not overlook the potential for a whole new category structure: Category:Weddings by location. Just for starters, we could have Category:Niagara Falls weddings, Category:Las Vegas weddings, Category:Eiffel Tower weddings, and perhaps Category:European castle weddings (in honor of Tom & Katie, of course). And while we're on the subject of weddings, I would really love to have Category:Shotgun weddings, which undoubtedly would have 4 very angry parent categories. Cgingold 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 06:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Cgingold and have a marriages by duration as well and then the intersection of the two to see if white house weddings correlate to long marriages and Las Vegas ones to short. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or vice versa. --Lquilter (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Drama episodes of TVB[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge all three to Category:TVB television programmes. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Drama episodes of TVB to Category:TVB Episodic Drama

Nominator's rationale: These 2 categories are covering the exact same ground: Dramatic series that run on the TVB network in Hong Kong. I propose that we move all of the items in the Drama episodes cat into the Episodic Drama cat and then rename the Episodic Drama cat cat. Proposing this because the Episodic cat is much bigger than the Drama episodes cat. But then the Episodic Drama cat needs to be renamed since it violates MoS. For a new cat name, I'm leaving it open to you guys. Category:Dramas on TVB perhaps? Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Programmes of TVB and rename that category to Category:TVB television programmes in line with Category:Television series by network. We do not appear to break down TV shows by genre and network and not seeing any reason to make this one an exception. Otto4711 12:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ah ha! :) That's why I put it on here instead of doing it myself. Figured I was missing something. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both as per Otto4711. Sting_au Talk 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per Otto. Doczilla 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:English reality television series[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:English reality television series to Category:British reality television series

Nominator's rationale: Merge, All of these are made by UK television companies and broadcast throughout the UK so should not be described as English. Tim! 09:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I don't know why this wasn't done months ago. ^anemoneI_projectors 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Adult Hits radio stations in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy rename. Bearcat 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Adult Hits radio stations in the United States to Category:Adult hits radio stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: As is best evidenced by the parent category, Category:Adult hits radio stations, naming conventions state that the "h" in "hits" should be lowercase. JPG-GR 04:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Sting_au Talk 10:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - clearly fits the guideline for speedy rename for capitalization fix. Otto4711 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename for capitalization fix. Doczilla 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear case for the speedy brigade; we don't need to spend a week on it here. And with only two articles in it at present, I can fix it in about two minutes. (Anybody else could have, too...but that's neither here nor there.) Consider this done and closed...and populated. God bless AWB. Bearcat 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:List of communities in Augusta County, Virginia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was convert to List of communities in Augusta County, Virginia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into List of communities in Augusta County, Virginia, this is a list article in category space. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert as nominated. Sting_au Talk 10:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert per nomination. Doczilla 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.