Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 23

< October 22	October 24 >

October 23[edit]

Category:David E. Kelley television programs[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. Kbdank71 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - variety of performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 24 October 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:Jonny Zero[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. Kbdank71 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Otto4711 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 24 October 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:U.S. state lower houses by state[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 all. Kbdank71 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. state lower houses by state to Category:State lower houses in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Standard for categories is to spell out "United States," not to abbreviate it. —Markles 20:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for clarity and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I created the category and mea culpa for the poor name, not just because of the abbreviation but also the inappropriate use of "by state" designation. Suggest similar move for its sister category, Category:U.S. state upper houses by state to Category:State upper houses in the United States. I will add a CFR tag there to this discussion. Rigadoun (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also Support rename of Category:U.S. state upper houses by state to Category:State upper houses in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both for clearer names. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:12, 29 October 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:Robot Chicken[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. Kbdank71 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Following removal of person by project articles the remaining material is interlinked and appropriately interlinked and don't warrant the category. Otto4711 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 25 October 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:Don Snow aka Jonn Savannah Songs[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. Kbdank71 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Article has a single member, a non-notable song that I've just put up for WP:PROD. This category thumbs its nose at naming conventions and the artist himself is not particularly notable outside of his bands. Were this category to have any notable members, they'd probably be better off in Category:The Sinceros Songs (where I note the only member of this category already is) or Category:Squeeze songs

(See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Snow aka Jonn Savannah for further rationale) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the outcome of the AfD discussion. If article is deleted, delete as an empty category. If article is kept, rename with lower case "songs" (as I had originally suggested at WP:CFDS). Bencherlite ^Talk 08:32, 24 October 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:Richard Pryor[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. Kbdank71 17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The material is interlinked through Richard Pryor which serves as an appropriate navigational hub. The material doesn't warrant the category. Note: the category was nominated once previously but that discussion is not linked on the talk page. Otto4711 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep he is notable enough to have his own category, especially if it were properly repopulated. --Buridan 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom, esp per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Most of the articles are interlinked through Template:Richard Pryor, and that template should be expanded to include his other works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 24 October 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:European Border Breakers Award winners[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. Kbdank71 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award. This is presented on the basis of album sales, which makes it akin (but not identical) to gold or platinum certification, which we don't use for categorization. A complete list exists in the award article. Otto4711 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This can better be handled in the article on the award. --lquilter 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is already a list at European Border Breakers Award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 24 October 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:Rudolf Nissim Award winners[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. Kbdank71 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award. No article on Rudolph Nissim or the Rudolph Nissim award, no mention that I'm seeing on a cursory read-through of ASCAP which presents it, not finding any sources that attest to the particular notability of the award or winning it or for that matter who Mr Nissim even is. Otto4711 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - It's an award for new orchestral works, I believe, and it would be far better to have some information about the award and a list of award-winners than this category. --lquilter 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the award even notable enough for an article? Otto4711 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively inclusionist on awards, because they can be quite niche-y and they provide useful signposts about biographical notability. That said, the award has been around for 20+ years and some of the google-juice on it describes it as "one of the most coveted awards in classical composition" [1]. Nissim established the award with a bequest to ASCAP, so I'm not sure that he's notable, but the award seems -- at first glance -- to be. --lquilter 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't have strong feelings either way, just didn't find anything all that impressive in a cursory Google search of my own. Otto4711 18:22, 23 October 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:The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band albums[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. Kbdank71 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band albums to Category:Nitty Gritty Dirt Band albums

Nominator's rationale: the correct name of the band does not include the word "the". HokieRNB 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. It's sacrilege (or even heresy) to misname that band. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 25 October 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:Ancient Philippians[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, all articles miscategorized. Recreation permissible if any articles are found or written that do match. Kbdank71 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ancient people from Philippi, or Category:People from Philippi. In general, denonyms are a bad idea, and this one is particularly obscure, nothing to do with the Philippines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please look at the category contents before nominating! None of these people are from Philippi at all - most fought in the famous battle there, one founded it etc etc. The category is too vague & not needed. Johnbod 07:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the exception of two kings of Macedonia, all those listed seem merely to have visited Philippi, if that. Accordingly, the category serves no useful purpose. Peterkingiron 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's no more or less valid than any other "People from X" category, but yeah, none of these people are actually from there. The cat can be recreated if some articles can be added to it about people actually FROM the place in question (I couldn't find any). Ford MF 14:47, 29 October 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:Phuture 12-inch singles[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 songs. Kbdank71 17:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Phuture songs, Category:Phuture albums, or both. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to songs per nom. Otto4711 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to songs. 12-inch singles are singles, and singles are songs.--Mike Selinker 16:10, 23 October 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:Mauricie Politicians[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. Kbdank71 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the non-standard capitalization here, AFAIK it's not generally considered useful on Wikipedia to subclassify politicians by a region, particularly when that regional category ends up as a random jumble of mayors, provincial legislators, federal Members of Parliament and senators. A list would be one thing. A category, no. Delete. Bearcat 06:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:40, 23 October 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.

Poker Player Halls of Fame[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 relisted on oct 29. Kbdank71 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Either delete as overcategorization by award/non-defining characteristic, or rename with lower-case "i" in "inductees." Otto4711 14:31, 23 October 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:John Denver[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. Kbdank71 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized; doesn't warrant the eponymous category. Otto4711 14:26, 23 October 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:Narcotrafficking by country[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. Kbdank71 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Narcotrafficking by country and
Category:Narcotrafficking in Colombia to

Category:Illegal drug trade by country and

Category:Illegal drug trade in Colombia

Rationale: These two recently created categories should conform to the names already in use for the parent and other related categories (as well as the main article, Illegal drug trade. Cgingold 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 24 October 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:Gaming Hall of Fame[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. Kbdank71 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Either Delete as overcategorization by award or honor or at least rename to Category:Gaming Hall of Fame inductees. Otto4711 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lists are better for this sort of thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 25 October 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:Recipients of the Ella award[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. Kbdank71 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award. Otto4711 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify. There should be a page for the Award with the list of winners. --lquilter 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is found at Society of Singers which is the organization that presents the award. Otto4711 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no need to listify since list already exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 24 October 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:Velvet Eden demo tapes[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. Kbdank71 16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Velvet Eden albums, probably best to put them all together. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'd have commented earlier but this seems like such a no-brainer... Otto4711 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: too often lately I've seen closings get overturned simply because there were too few participants in the discussion (for example, just the nominator). As an admin who closes CFD often, I'm going to relist once any that have no other opinions. --Kbdank71 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal intended. Otto4711 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I thought it was a no-brainer myself, and just thought I should explain why I was relisting it. --Kbdank71 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as for purposes of categorization there's no essential difference between a demo tape and an album. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:00, 23 October 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:Former designated terrorist 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 no consensus. Kbdank71 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The word terrorist falls under Words to avoid. The category should be either deleted or renamed to something that is not POV. --VartanM 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is; terrorist is what these orgs were designated as and WP is not to use weasel words just to get around inconvenient truth. The MOS states 'terrorist' can be used when the organization is 'designated as such'. This and other similar categories include the government/body making the 'designation'. This is not POV; this is just showing the org had the designation Hmains 16:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains Tanbace 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former terrorist designated organizations to make it clear that the members of the category have been designated as terrorists by an external source, as is required by the MOS. This should help reduce any POV concerns, but I wouldn't be opposed to a simple keep either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is problematic. I would prefer to see the "designated terrorist" categorisations removed entirely, because they reflect one particular worldview, and are applied selectively, so under this approach the ANC is labelled as terrorist by wikipedia, but the Contras are not: that's about as POV as you can get.
However, there is a further problem with this category, because its meaning is unclear: does it mean organisations formerly designated as terrorist (such as the now-peaceful ANC), or defunct organisations which were in their time labelled terrorist? (e.g. the Irgun) The category currently includes both sorts, which merely demonstrates the confusion about its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - In that case, would it be more feasible to split this into two categories: Category:Former organizations designated as terrorists and Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorists? This keeps the antecedents clear, while still retaining the aspect of separation from the designation itself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like your suggestions but its missing who designated them as terrorist. If its the US State Departmant than it should be Category:Former organizations designated as terrorist by US State Department. Otherwise its Wikipedia labeling them as such. --VartanM 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit better, but it still perpetuates the problem of categories which apply the label "terrorist" to groups which were disapproved of by the major Western states, without the same tag being applied to groups which met with their approval. That's a grave breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a fundamental principal of the project. This sort of material should be covered in lists, where the bare labels can be accompanied by some wider explanation of the nature of that particular group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPOV. Organizations that turn away from terrorism should be given the respect for doing so, not once again tied to it. --Voidvector 10:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains, or split per Hersfold. The "designated" is the way we have chosen to solve the problems of definition, and deletion would be wholly unjustified censorship. Johnbod 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorisation is a method of sorting content. Censorship might be a relevant word if we were discussing the deletion of articles, but that's not wht CfD is for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split per Hersfold & Johnbod. King of the North East (T/C) 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep terrorist is to be avoided, but as described in the article Designated terrorist organizations, the label has real world consequences - it's not WP saying that these organizations were terrorists, it is that we're saying that someone designated them as terrorists which had the consequences described in the article. Carlossuarez46 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:Defunct designated terrorist organizations for orgs that went out of business while still bearing the designation and Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist for those orgs that still exist and are no longer designated. For whatever reason we don't seem to care much for the word "defunct" in category names (can't imagine why, it's a perfectly good word) but in this instance the potential for confusion is too great to use variations on the word "former" in both category names. Otto4711 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better than any other proposal for renaming or splitting, but per my reasons above, I'd still prefer deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support suggestion of Otto4711. It is entirely appropriate for "organisations designated as terrorist" to exist. Accordingly, those de-designated need a category. I suspect that the criterion for includion is a US state department designation, but the UK government has a similar designation, I think "proscribed" organisations. Peterkingiron 23:26, 28 October 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:Computer games[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 as cat redirect. Kbdank71 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty, obsolete category. SharkD 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a category redirect, and redirects are cheap. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:03, 23 October 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:Cotton Scientists/Technologists[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. Kbdank71 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a category, not worth converting into an article. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Unreferenced article in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really a category, over a month old, and still empty (CSD C1). -- Prove It ^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We just decided to merge Category:Cotton scientists and Category:Cotton technologists into Textile scientists, less than a month ago. --lquilter 17:06, 23 October 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:People from Sligo[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. Kbdank71 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Sligo to Category:People from County Sligo

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Parent category contains only 61 articles. There is no need to divide it with 3-article subcat. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: cfdnotice left at Sligo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --The.Q^(t)(c) 12:14, 25 October 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:Arrested Development (TV 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 delete. Kbdank71 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete small category for a cancelled TV series. Unlikely to expand. A complete template for the series exists and the articles are interlinked. Nominated once previously for deletion and closed no consensus. Since then one of the articles has been deleted at AFD and another is likely to be deleted or merged. Eponymous overcategorization, unwarranted by the material. Otto4711 03:05, 23 October 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:Brewing[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. If cider or whiskey need their own category, one can be created for them. Kbdank71 16:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brewing to Category:Brewing (beer)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Brewing is ambiguous since you also brew tea. This change would also align the category with the main article name. Vegaswikian 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and salt Category:Brewing to prevent re-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is this category supposed to include Beer brands, beer brewing companies, and beer breweries (the building)? Pick one or more. Maybe the category name can then be made to be inclusive of all that is to be included. Hmains 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is clear that this is for the process. I'm not sure how this area needs to be changed, but creating Category:Beer brands, Category:Brewing companies (beer) and Category:Breweries (buildings) seems to be reasonable. I'm not convinced that we need to break out the buildings by product at this point since I did not see many articles that would fit there. Still not sure about the parents. Vegaswikian 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - so where would we put cider-brewing, the brewing stage of whisky production, etc. Peterkingiron 23:29, 28 October 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:Delaware athletes[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. Kbdank71 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Delaware sportspeople, convention of Category:American sportspeople by state, note that baseball and football players are NOT actually Athletes, at least not in the way most of the world uses that term. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Neier 11:56, 27 October 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.