The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Contrary to what the category creator has said, "Moviecal" is not a commonly used word to define a movie musical. SpikeJones (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:relisted on 28th. Kbdank71 14:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:relisted on 28th. Kbdank71 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Put all online companies in this category and make other relevant categories sub categories. "Online company" is a better, more intelligible, expression than "Dot Com" and more inclusive. Not all online companies are of the dot com domain. "Online brokerages" is a perfect example of what would make a good sub category for "Online companies". -Duribald (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but what defines an "online company"? A company who happens to also be online (virtually all), or a company whose primary business activity takes place online? This category, presumably, is meant to address the latter, which is why getting more specific makes more sense, ie, Category:Online booksellers. --ZimZalaBimtalk 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category actually makes more sense to me than Category:Dot-com, since the scope of the "Dot-com" category is not defined, and it might appropriately be interpreted as dealing only with "dot com" domain names. However, the Dot-com category includes some topics, such as Dot-com bubble that don't obviously fit under "Online Companies." Why not merge this into the existing well-developed category Category:Electronic commerce? (It seems to be a parent category for all online business.) I note that Category:Online retailers is well-developed. As Duribald suggests, it might make sense to create Category:Online brokerages -- or, even better, the more inclusive category Category:Online financial services. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Sonuvagun, it turns out that "Online brokerages" already exists (I'm not paying close enough attention); I just now added it to Category:Electronic commerce. --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent suggestion. I support a merge with Category:Electronic commerce both for "Dot Com" and "Online Companies". -Duribald (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with Category:Dot-com at this time. Most of these will probably wind up in Category:Online retailers which seems to be the correct place. I have already reclassified some of these but they all need to be looked at. In addition two of the subcategories are nominated for separate actions. If anyone wants to help by cleaning up Category:Dot-com as appropriate, then feel free to jump in. If we are going to do something with what remains in Category:Dot-com then Category:Dot-com people will also need to be addressed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well Dot-com is simply a company that does most of its business on the Internet. This is an unsourced definition in the main article. What exactly defines most? 51%? 99%? I would say that if you need to put a number on this it is arbitrary and therefore should not be used to populate a category. So that would argue for the deletion of Category:Dot-com. Then we don't have a main article for Online company. So unless a case is made why these categories need to exist, I don't see how we can keep either. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This list would be so incredibly long it would be impractical. Every article that the editor has added the category to has had the addition reverted as vandalism. Terrillja (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely and totally impractical category, and I am worried that the creation of this category may be a bit pointy. JBsupreme (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of no discernible value. WP:CATGRS advises:
Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic. A sexuality-specific category could be implemented where sexuality has a specific relation to the topic.JNW (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is, in essence, Category:Radio stations nicknamed Froggy, and an OCAT by shared name. These stations share nothing except marketing puns; they are not necessarily owned or operated by the same company, not necessarily country music stations (and not a distinctive format like Jack FM), and do not define a region— and a station's nickname is not defining in the way its ownership, format, or market are. There are no equivalent categories for the comparable The Fox or Cat Country brands. choster (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. People aren't gonna be looking for radio stations by nickname much. -Duribald (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it weren't for Dwight Schrute's WGGY bumper sticker there would be no plausible reason for this cat. And it isn't enough. Daniel Case (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd even favour killing Category:Jack FM stations, for what it's worth, but that's a separate discussion. Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2008 (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:Lists of Registered Historic Places in Virginia[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:merge. Kbdank71 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposal is to merge up to the parent category. This category's contents are the six lists into which the state list was arbitrarily subdivided for convenience; no other state NRHP category has a separate subcategory for this type of purpose, and it is not apparent that keeping this list separate is beneficial to either users or maintainers. Notes: (1) The statewide index list is currently in the parent category (because I put it there when I created it, being unaware of this category). (2) The proposed target category is the proposed new name for Category:Registered Historic Places in Virginia, which I hope will have been renamed by the time this proposal is processed. Orlady (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, seems sensible to me. JBsupreme (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all other NRHP naming changes. Daniel Case (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, Orlady's rationale is convincing. AdjustShift (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (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:People conceived as the result of adulterous affairs[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 delete given BLP issues. No point in prolonging this one. BencherliteTalk 00:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category serves no purpose except perhaps to embarrass living people. Stepheng3 (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, Delete per nom. Hardly surprising that this is a category looking for parents -- I suspect it was conceived as the result of a juvenile preoccupation with illicit sex... Cgingold (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious BLP issues. GlassCobra 07:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Categories should be practical and there's little practical value in this category. Few people will be looking for this characteristic in people while searching Wikipedia. If consensus to keep - suggest renaming to "Category:Potential bastards". *LOL* -Duribald (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coming up with a politically correct name for "bastards" doesn't make the category any less pejorative. Daniel Case (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (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:Quarterbacks with 35,000 passing yards[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The choice of 35,000 seems arbitarary; why not 30,000 or 25,000 yards? Not clear why 35,000 passing yards would be a defining characteristic for a quarterback. Rankings are more suited to list than a category. Stepheng3 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless I've missed something, 35,000 passing yards is not a "magic number" akin to 500 home runs. Cgingold (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, far too arbitrary, borders on trivial. JBsupreme (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JNW (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The cat is too arbitrary. AdjustShift (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2008 (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.
