Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 28 September 30 >

September 29[edit]

Category:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy[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, already moved. Kbdank71 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer articles. Since any article can be changed at any time, any kind of tag that declares correctness or accuracy is certainly not to be trusted. However, if they have a list of articles they want to monitor thats fine. I'd also suggest that they confine their tags to talk pages only. -- Prove It (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both suggestions. I was about to suggest moving the tags to the talk pages until I re-read the nomination. I would recommend adding the category to a talk page template. 17Drew 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP:TIMETRACE templates and guidelines have been updated. Now all templates go to talk pages. The template {{histrefverif|the date goes here}}, which was categorising to Category:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy is now added to the talk page and categorises as Category:Articles evaluated by WP Timeline Tracer‎ . I have taken care of updating all articles that had the tag in main namespace, removed the tag and relocated it to talk pages. The Category:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy is now obsolete. ℒibrarian2 08:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all changes done so far by Librarian2. The category nominated for renaming was created by me for the WikiProject Timeline Tracer. It is now no longer in use. I would also want to thank you for your alertness in detecting the non-compliance of that category and the possible concerns that its wording could generate.Daoken 09:04, 30 September 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:Music software companies[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 already deleted.--Mike Selinker 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music software companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Ended up being untenable to categorize companies by 'category', many companies cross software categories or are really unique. Cander0000 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete since you created the category. 17Drew 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per 17Drew. Snocrates 07:15, 30 September 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:Music videos by year[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.--Mike Selinker 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music videos by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: For the most part redundant to Category:<year> songs and Category:<year> singles. When the music video is released is not significantly different information from when the song itself is released. 17Drew 21:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These categories are subcats of the songs-by-year categories, and are useful because not all songs have an accompanying video. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but most singles do. Since not every music video is released with a single, this is in songs-by-year scheme, making it more or less a duplicate of the singles-by-year scheme. 17Drew 21:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod 21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:00, 1 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:Public Ivies[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 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public Ivies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Public Ivies is a vague and ill-defined way to refer to public universities in the United States that supposedly offer an Ivy League-like experience. This category is well-defined as the lists of schools published by three authors on the subject. However, these are simply subjective accounts. What is the utility in the category if it's just a few published opinions? It doesn't seem like a long stretch from here to "People considered beautiful" and the like -- you can cite it all you want, but it's still not a reasonable, encyclopedic category. Furthermore, what makes these three accounts authoritative over others? Some universities (SUNY Geneseo, Murray State University are mentioned in the article) call themselves public ivies, yet were not listed by the authors of those books.

Overall, I just feel like this is a catch-all marketing term and doesn't belong on Wikipedia as an organizational category. Dylan 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ill-defined peacock term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both - lists are enough, & likely to be better patrolled. I note the whole University of Texas System is in the category, when the lists only have UT at Austin. Johnbod 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Listification with references seems the better option here. Snocrates 07:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedgirl's peacock term. This is a marketing term and constant pushing by universities trying to claim the term is likely in the future. An article on reputational aspects of "ivy league" and/or university marketing would be much better. --lquilter 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaguely named category. Doczilla 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 1 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:British eurosceptics[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 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British eurosceptics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as categorisation by opinion. Per the article Euroscepticism, this a very broad term covering a wide range of political views from opposition to further European integration (or demands to reform) through to these seeking complete withdrawal from the European Union. It is too loose a term to usefully group politicians, many of whom have radically changed their position on Europe over the years; e.g. the Labour Party promised in its 1983 manifesto to withdraw from Europe, but Gordon Brown (who was was elected on that manifesto) is now the Prime Minister who signed the latest EU treaty. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 18:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps rename. I only added people who have campaigned for British withdrawal from the EEC/EC/EU, not people like Gordon Brown who stood on an anti-EEC platform once as part of a manifesto he did not take part in drafting. "Anti-communism" is a broad term too but exists as a category (and includes both Churchill and Attlee), as does "British socialists", which depending on how you define "socialism" can include anyone from Tony Blair to Tony Benn—clearly a very broad term. Also "British trade unionists" could theoretically include every British person on Wikipedia who's been a trade unionist but is only populated by people who have been union activists—I think the same criteria should apply for this category. If the current name of this category is unacceptable perhaps it could be renamed to make it clear it is for people who have campaigned for Britain to leave the European Union and its predecessor organisations.--Johnbull 19:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This a rather good illustration of why categorisation by opinion is so problematic, and the existence of some other categories-by-opinion doesn't make this one any less problematic (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). If we renamed this category to Campaigners against British membership of the European Union, then we would logically have to include in it all those Labour Party politicians who campaigned for a "no" vote in 1975 and who did campaign on the 1983 manifesto, but who subsequently became supporters of the EU ... so to make it work we have to decide how to weigh the intensity of support for the 1983 policy. Categories by opinion don't work, because people's views can change radically, and because their positions can be much more nuanced than the category name suggests. For this sort of task, lists are much better, because they can include a summary of the nature and timing of the opposition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This category is currently dangerously vague, but with strict grounds for inclusion it could be acceptable. My suggestion would be that anyone included here must have identified themselves as a eurosceptic, as shown by a reliable source in their article. With this change, I would say Keep. Terraxos 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that still doesn't solve the problem of the vagueness of the term "eurosceptic". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete person by opinion and a vague opinion too: Euroscepticism can be or multiple gradations so the label is for anyone who's not "all in" at every level or something else? No objective criteria for inclusion. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not objectively definable. >Radiant< 09:33, 3 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.

Citizens of Uzbekistan[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. I'm going to proactively rename Category:Uzbek singers as well.--Mike Selinker 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per convention of Category:Uzbekistani people by occupation, and discussion of September 21st. -- Prove It (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. LeSnail 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, although I must say there's something about the term "Uzbek" that's inherently funny and attractive. For consistency and proper usage though, rename all to "Uzbekistani". Snocrates 07:19, 30 September 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:Prisoners accorded Special Category Status[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 close per WP:CSK as nomination by banned editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners accorded Special Category Status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an end-run by some Wikipedians following their failed attempt to categorize IRA terrorist prisoners as "Prisoners of War". Most of the 10 men in this new category were not given the special status or had it revoked. Only one, Billy McKee, due to his superannuation compared with the others, appears to even qualify since on 1 March 1976, the British Government revoked Special Category Status. Otherwise any IRA terrorist qualifies for this category. The fact that this subcategory is included as a subcategory of "Prisoners of War" and the fact that the superceding category (People imprisoned on charges of terrorism) was removed when this new category was created shows that this is a PR effort, following the work initiated by User:Vintagekits.

For instance:

  • Seanna Walsh: By the time he arrived back in the H-Blocks, the British government had withdrawn Special Category status and IRA members had commenced the blanket protest.
  • Francis Hughes: As he was convicted after 1 March 1976 Hughes was transferred from the compounds to the H-Blocks and lost his Special Category Status.
  • Gerry Kelly: Upon imprisonment in England, Kelly, and the other prisoners went on hunger strike in order have their political status recognised and to be repatriated back to Northern Ireland.
  • Brendan "Bik" McFarlane: McFarlane tried to escape the Maze Prison dressed as a priest in 1978. The bid failed, McFarlane’s Special Category Status was withdrawn, and he joined the dirty protest in the H-blocks.

Quis separabit 11:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The category was originally suggested by me as a compromise solution since it is verifiable and avoids POV / edit wars on what constitutes a POW. Anyone who was given special category status at any time would be eligible so all the above are accurately placed in the category. The exception is Francis Hughes who isn't there anyway - perhaps you meant Brendad Hughes who was awarded SCS? If we deleted all categories on the grounds that the people in them no longer held that status then we'd have to delete most categories on here e.g. Presidents of the USA would, on those grounds, only include the current incumbent - which is obviously nonsense. Valenciano 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Less POV than some of the suggestions. Mine would have been Political Prisoners, but agreed with this as the middle solution. --Domer48 13:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and take a good hard look at the nominator. This is the nominator's first edit. Can you think of many editors whose first edit would be to start a complicated CfD? SirFozzie 15:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly what I thought too. Maybe a checkuser is appropriate? Valenciano 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all those in that category held that status during imprisonment at one time or other, there is nothing POV about the category.--Padraig 14:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an important category of prisoners in Northern Ireland (I see no WP:CSD grounds for a speedy close). The nominator's POV is made very clear, but an editor's politics are no grounds for deleting a category, and although this CfD nomination is a very strange first edit we can discuss the nomination on its merits. However, there does need to be clarification of why some articles have been included in this category, e.g Mairéad Farrell, who played an important part in the dirty protest but was arrested after Special Category Status was abolished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a very extensive discussion here [1] Certainly there may be people who have been incorrectly added to the category and they should be removed. Valenciano 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. That sure is a very long discussion, but there does indeed seem at the end of it to be a consensus for this category name, albeit a slightly grugding one from some quarters. Most importantly, though, there is no sign in that discussion of any other category name which could be acceptable to both the Republican and British views of The Troubles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if for no other reason than the use of the term "terrorist" in this proposal reveals the clear POV and agenda of the proposer. (Sarah777 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Yes, it's clear that the proposer has a POV, but this discussion is about whether to keep or delete the category, not about the views of the nominator. If it was acceptable to make a !vote to "keep" because you disagree with the nom's POV, it should also be acceptable to those who agree with the nom !vote for deletion ... and that would not be a discussion about the category, it'd be a straw poll on views of The Troubles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BrownHairedGirl, for your fair-mindedness. However I am gobsmacked by the fact that this discussion has been joined almost exclusively by partisans from one side, most notably, but not exclusively, User:Sarah777, with her checkered history on Wikipedia and blatant pro-IRA stance. Odd. Quis separabit 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the opponents do mostly come from one side of the debate, but is that really surprising when you made a nomination based on a characterisation of the subject as being about "IRA terrorist"s? Per WP:TERRORIST, "Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore."
When you nailed your own colours so firmly to the mast, it's unsurprising that those following a different flag sprung to action, particularly when they have just been through a 643-billion-word debate on the subject to reach a consensus between the two viewpoints. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about my use of provocative language (even just two words). I guess some issues bring out the worst in people, myself included. However you are seriously mistaken if you think that it was just the word "terrorist" that galvanized their opinions/input. And that still doesn't explain why the opposing hordes haven't come to register their two cents. I feel abandoned, but maybe they have decided this is the best solution they can obtain. Btw, for a millisecond or two I almost took you seriously when you referred to 643 billion words. More like 6,430 words at most, I suspect. Anyway, it's obvious that this category is a keeper, based on all the above votes, so there really isn't any reason not to conclude the matter. Yours, Quis separabit 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this category as part of a larger scheme of categories to cover the whole POW/terrorist debate. This has yet to be fully implemented due to my involvement in a related RfAR. For me, is the least controversial of these cats, as the criteria for inclusion is completely verifiable and the phrasing is entirely neutral and it is informative. There may be certain people in the cat who should not be there, but that is no reason for deleting. Rockpocket 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor and there doesn't seem to be much support for the nomination, so can this be speedily kept now? One Night In Hackney303 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any grounds for a speedy close as such, but I can't see much scope for plausible objections to an early closure per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, ONIH, you're right - I was looking at the wrong guideline. Since all votes other than that of the banned nominator are to keep, I don't think there's any prob with an involved admin closing the CfD, which I'll do now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 1 October 2007 (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:Indos[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 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indos to Category:Indonesian-Dutch People
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Picaroon (t) 02:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, assuming the term "Indo" is limited to Indonesian–Dutch and is not extended to people of mixed Indonesian and other European ancestry. From those included in the category, it appears it has been limited to Ind–Dutch? Snocrates 07:23, 30 September 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:North Dakota U.S. House of Representatives elections[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 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North Dakota U.S. House of Representatives elections to Category:United States House of Representatives elections in North Dakota
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Consistency with other states. Also, abbreviations ("U.S.") are disfavored in category names. —Markles 01:22, 29 September 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:Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld[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 13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as performer by performance. After Midnight 0001 01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance. Wryspy 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has become a notable late-night talk show and one of FNC's highest rated programs. Not only has guest panelists but also has a consistent and regular group of panelists, therefore deserves a category. -- Thefreemarket 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Wryspy. Thefreemarket's reasoning is valid in justifying the existence of an article about the show, but not a category. Notability does not equal category. Snocrates 07:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAT#Performers by performance (nice to provide a link for those who aren't sure what's being referred to). Thefreemarket's arguments are indeed completely irrelevant to the category—categories are not awards we hand out to the sufficiently-popular. Xtifr tälk 07:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xtifr. Categories are a navigational device, not an award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 2 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:Japanese war criminals[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 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese war criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose upmerging Category:Japanese war criminals into Category:Japanese people convicted of war crimes

So, not prepared to take my word for it, or to spend the 3 minutes yourself, Watermint?? Johnbod 14:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:People convicted in Tokyo Trials. All of people who was categorized this category had been categorized another one from Oct 2006. Since I found the intention of the person who made this category, I thought to the argument that much words were unnecessary. I'm sorry if you felt that my reason was lacking.--Watermint 06:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm really baffled by the votes for deletion. I've seen nothing to indicate that any of these individuals are improperly categorized as "convicted war criminals". All that's at issue here is merging two duplicative categories. Cgingold 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and Johnbod's research, which I have since re-checked for my own self. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: several of deletes have comments expressing doubt in whether we know that these folks were in fact convicted, feel free to check yourself and once assured discount their !votes/comments based on an unknown that has now resolved to the contrary of their fears. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My !vote was conditional on the check, and I'm happy for a merge now that the check has been done. I think it would be reasonable to read the "delete per BHG" comments as accepting the same condition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if my reason looked unsuitable and caused confusion. Since my reason for deletion was added, please read.--Watermint 07:05, 2 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:T.I.[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 13:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:T.I. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Another category with only 4 or 5 links. West Coast Ryda 13:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary eponymous category. Albums etc. can be linked through article. --lquilter 16:07, 30 September 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:Spiziapteryx[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 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spiziapteryx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Monotypic genus does not need category. Dixonsej 10:20, 29 September 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:La Rioja (and its subcategories)[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 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:La Rioja to Category:La Rioja (Spain)
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous - there is a La Rioja Province and a city of the same name in Argentina. The article is at La Rioja (Spain). A similar rename is also needed for this category's several subcats. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Johnbod 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to resolve ambiguity. Snocrates 08:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per article consistency. Note that the subcats should be tagged in, however. Alai 17:18, 30 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_29&oldid=1138389362"