Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22[edit]

Category:Fads[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: Close. Perhaps best all round if we bring this to a conclusion. CSD'ing this category, even if empty, so soon after the DRV seems, in hindsight, to have been distinctly unhelpful. Best course is probably to revisit this category in a few weeks when the dust has settled and we can assess usage post-DRV. --Xdamr^talk 01:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Was nominated for a C1 speedy. However this was deleted after a full discussion at CfD which was overturned at deletion review. With that history, I don't believe that this should be considered for a speedy delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close we just went through this and people are jumping through the wrong hoops at the moment. Hobit (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the DRV close suggests scrupulous repopulation. Perhaps one of the supporters of this category could supply an objective fad or 2 to place within it. Occuli (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tagged this for C1 purely on the grounds that it was empty. With respect to Vegaswikian, I don't think that raising a new cfd is especially useful. If a category is empty, then it's C1 - either use it or lose it. --Xdamr^talk 12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, given the history at DRV where the deletion was overturned, it really should be discussed here. Those that fought to keep now have a chance to act. The deletion review was closed about 2 days before the nomination as a C1. A nomination that soon after the close that most editors will not see is, in my opinion contrary to the intent of the DRV decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. This was not eligible for a speedy deletion in spirit, and the letter-of-the-law is quite a stretch. I was actually a bit unsure after the DRV if I should undelete the category itself or merely allow it to be recreated. With a few exceptions, the actual category page holds very little information—so this is typically a meaningless distinction of admin buttons vs. no admin buttons. The deletion of a category has much more to do with its massive depopulation. In a way, I wasn't overturning the deletion/depopulation so much as I was allowing its recreation (i.e. selective repopulation). I didn't think long and hard about the criteria for speedy deletion in relationship to categories, but I didn't think anybody would be that persnickity. Silly me. People seem to forget so often that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I did raise the possibility that this category be relisted at some point in the future, but I wasn't thinking it would be on an odd technicality like this. So if this is being listed because someone thinks that they can hash out the category in a better way (this is, after all, Categories for Discussion), of if it is simply a referendum on my closure, fine. I don't really have any more say in the matter, and I frankly couldn't care that much about this category anyway. If it is just so that we can leap through another hoop, please speedy close this thing. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, just speedy-delete the page and recreate it when you start repopulating it. What we don't need to do is stress over whether a category page is or is not technically there. If some people need their bureaucracy, they can have it (but if someone speedy deletes it, please, for the love of God, don't send this to DRV again). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment. Occuli has a good idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just make it go away - clearly there are serious issues regarding the existence and population of this category and its potential sub-cats. I suggest a variation on userfying. Delete the category and if an editor feels passionate enough about it let them gather the evidence to answer the problems on some sort of user subpage and then bring it back to DRV to request re-creation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (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:New Wave revival[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 as empty. --Xdamr^talk 22:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Emptied after this no consensus close. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename since this category was emptied follow the rename of New Wave revival to Post-punk revival. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2009 (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:Green electronics[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: Rename Category:Green electronics to Category:Electronics and the environment. --Xdamr^talk 22:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Green electronics to Category:Electronics and the environment

Nominator's rationale: "Green electronics" is a less formal term than the more formal and broader term of" Electronics and the environment". The proposed name will also fit in with a related article that I will create and it fits in with similar category names. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The whole Green structure has bothered me for a while. I'm not convinced that this category is even needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is question whether we follow common usage or formal, and hopefully more succinct, terminology. I want to create the associated Electronics and the environment article and I would redirect Green electronics to it. Articles such as green washing, Green politics etc are valid article names due to common usage. I guess it is the descriptive articles that need formal, succinct names. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the existing Category:Computers and environmental issues, since it's essentially a duplicate of it. The category has only one item, which is not enough to justify it anyway. Ikluft (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better ones would be Category:Computers and the environment or Category:Sustainability and computers. Green computinq is not an environmental issue - it is a way to avoid these issues. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Issues" aren't always bad, just something to consider. I can empathize for the effort to clean up a category hierarchy. See the CFR for Cat:Craters below for one that I'm involved in. But I have to agree with Vegaswikian in this case that I don't even see the need for Cat:Green electronics or Cat:Electronics and the environment, considering the duplication with Cat:Computers and environmental issues. Yes, electronics is a wider topic than computers. But these categories are close enough and aren't big enough for two of them. So an alternative I could go along with would be to rename to Cat:Electronics and the environment if Cat:Computers and environmental issues is also merged into it, possibly as a separate CFM. Ikluft (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This proposal does make an improvement by changing an informal term with political undertones to a clearer term. I'll go along with this. I'll make the merging of Category:Computers and environmental issues with it a suggestion for a separate CFM, not a condition for this CFR. Ikluft (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (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:Peasant foods[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems very prone to WP:OR. The stated criteria "Peasant foods are traditional regional or ethnic dishes made from accessible ingredients and enjoyed by poorer people" seems way too wide a net to be a viable category. Does it include basically everything outside of haute cuisine? Do foods of the urban poor not count as "peasant"? The subcats are even odders, with "Pizza" and "Offal" as subcats. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Far too subjective, & many offal dishes are rather expensive (except in the US I suppose). Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absurd overcategorisation. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too subjective, with all the dangers of wp:or and wp:pov. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And with the recent rise of interest in food and cooking, one country's "peasant food" can become another country's haute cuisine, making this category extremely difficult to define objectively and without WP:OR. Geoff ^T ^C 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Far too subjective for a category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (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:Commissioners of Docks[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: Rename Category:Commissioners of Docks to Category:Commissioners of Docks and Ferries of the City of New York. --Xdamr^talk 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Commissioners of Docks to Category:Commissioner of Docks and Ferries

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to fuller title. I don't believe that this is commonly used so the short form probably does not meet being the common name. Historical accuracy may be more important. Category:Dock commissioners may be the common name, but I suspect that would be ambiguous. Apparently the full name of the position was Commissioner of Docks and Ferries of the City of New York, but that could be overkill. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In UK we have Docks and Harbour Boards, which presumably have a leader, so it might be safer to mention US, or New York, in there somewhere. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Commissioners of Docks and Ferries of New York City for clarity. (Or to the official Category:Commissioners of Docks and Ferries of the City of New York if desired.) When I first came across this I thought it was strangely obscure in its name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Good Ol’factory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2009 (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:Chamois Niortais FC and related[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: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominators rationale: These categories should be renamed to match the parent article, Chamois Niortais F.C. Big Dom 21:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. Big Dom 21:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2009 (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.

Usher categories[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: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Usher to Category:Usher (entertainer)
Category:Usher songs to Category:Usher (entertainer) songs
Category:Usher albums to Category:Usher (entertainer) albums

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Usher (entertainer), and to avoid the ambiguous Usher dab page. — Σxplicit 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st one, oppose 2nd and 3rd. While the parent category could be confused with other things, I don't see how anyone would think these are songs about theatre ushers or albums by Poe's House of Usher or anything but Usher Raymond's work.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this seems to be the naming convention several categories go by: Category:Queen (band) albums, Category:Ashanti (singer) albums, etc. — Σxplicit 17:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In both those cases, confusion is likely. "Ashanti" is an ethnic group, and "queen" could be a song's subject rather than the artist. There isn't any confusion in bands like Jethro Tull (band), and so they don't have the disambiguator in their category names. It's a case by case basis, and in Usher's case, the disambiguator doesn't seem needed to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Even though Σ has a valid point, I'd like to rename all for complete disambiguation and for consistency. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2009 (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.

Firearms by company[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: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fabrique Nationale de Herstal to Category:Fabrique Nationale de Herstal firearms

Category:Marlin Firearms Company to Category:Marlin Firearms Company firearms

Category:Sturm, Ruger & Company to Category:Sturm, Ruger & Company firearms

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since the category is for the firearms produced by a company, the name of the category should reflect that. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2009 (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:Remington Arms Company firearms[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: So—if I have this right—there is agreement to not endorse the change and therefore there is agreement to merge Category:Remington Arms Company to Category:Remington Arms Company firearms. I agree that these can be confusing when worded this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Remington Arms Company firearms to Category:Remington Arms Company

Nominator's rationale: Reverse merge. Found as an empty out of process. The category is for the firearms made by the company and that is how it is parented. If we need a category for the company, then the old category should be a parent of the firearms one. The moved name is not an accurate description of its contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. It seems to me you wanted to nominate Category:Remington Arms Company for a merge into Category:Remington Arms Company firearms. That is the opposite of what you wrote here. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was an out of process empty that was nominated for a speedy deletion. I list these when there is an issue that, in my opinion, may say that the nomination may not be the right way to go and see if consensus is there to support the change or not. In this case, I'm suggesting that the reverse merge, (restore things the way they were) is the right thing to do. I'm still trying to find a good way to process these, and better word the nominations. Since the queue is huge, maybe when I have the time I short cut the wording trying to process more of the backlog. So if any admins want to help check these, feel free to jump in. Bottom line, the source should not be deleted and the target should be merged into the one that was nominated for deletion. Bottom line, Category:Remington Arms Company firearms was nominated for deletion as empty and the contents are in Category:Remington Arms Company. Do you want to endorse that move of not? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to move all articles from Category:Remington Arms Company to Category:Remington Arms Company firearms. Which seems to me to be the opposite of this nomination. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is what I'm suggesting, to undo the out of process move of the contents. Maybe you need to comment on the usage of C1 to empty categories like this one and the problems that it causes when the rename is not the best alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2009 (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:Markov chains[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 nominated category. At close it was still empty. However, because of how this proceeded, I'm not going to say that a re-creation of Category:Markov chains as a subcategory is necessarily "prohibited" in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Markov chains to Category:Markov models

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Apparently moved out of process. The main article is Markov chains so I'm not convinced that the new name is right. When I first saw the new name I thought is was an agency for models. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Vegaswikian did not nominate this article; I did. I nominated it for speedy deletion several hours after I created it. I gave my reasons for my nomination at Category talk:Markov chains already as you are not supposed to post on this page when requesting a speedy deletion. I do not know why Vegaswikian converted it to a "regular" renaming, unless he/she did not read my comments. I am perfectly aware that the main article is named Markov chain, as explained in my reasons; I also explained there the rationale for the change, though I admit it is very brief. Also, the category has now been empty for over 4 days, that being the fourth criterion it meets for speedy deletion. Please read my nomination for more information. I would appreciate this still being treated as a speedy deletion, but I suppose it no longer applies for a speedy process because it is "under discussion". — Skittleys (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since nominated by sole editor, and as empty. No doubt about it. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have heard of Markov chains, but not of Markov models 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Markov models, delete Category:Markov chains. The "Markov model" terminology is a bit broader, as it covers Markov random fields and Markov networks that are not chains, as well as subjects such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo that use Markov chains but are not themselves chains. Markov chains could reasonably be a subcategory under Markov models, but the main category doesn't currently seem so full as to need splitting in that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be good to have both cats eventually with Markov chains a subcat of either Markov processes or Markov models, but logically this would require that everyone agrees what is meant by a Markov Chain. Unfortunately there seems little agreement in published literature about what distinguishes a Markov Chain from a more general Markov process. Melcombe (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Markov chains: there is plenty of Markov chain specific material, e.g. Chapman–Kolmogorov equation. This could be a subcat under Markov models (though the lack of a definition of what exactly constitutes a Markov model could be a problem). —3mta3 (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2009 (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:Black Sea resorts in Romania[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 Category:Black Sea resorts in Romania to Category:Seaside resorts in Romania. --Xdamr^talk 13:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Black Sea resorts in Romania to Category:Seaside resorts in Romania

Nominator's rationale: Reverse merge. Another out of process rename. This done for 'consistent categorization with other countries'. My question is, is it reasonable to categorize the resorts on the Black Sea? If this should be done, then we need to do the reverse merge. If not, then we should delete the old category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Seaside resorts in Romania. Even if we do decide that it is useful to have all Black Sea resorts categorised in one parent, it would contain all seaside resorts in Romania, Georgia, and Bulgaria (plus all of Ukraine if the Sea of Azov is regarded as part of the Black Sea), so those countries' "Seaside resorts in Foo" categories can serve as adequate children of it. Having two separate categories which will ostensibly contain exactly the same articles is overkill. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Grutness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2009 (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:Canadian Football League free agents[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While I understand the motivation and use of categories such as this and the recently CfD'd Category:National Football League free agents to organise free agents, by Wikipedia standards, this is not an acceptable article category as it is not a defining characteristic of a person; only a temporary contract state. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I personally like the free agent categories, they hold no long term value and are nothing but temporary.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I know little about sportign contracts, but thought that the situtation was generally temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see the point to this one. Since players bounce around from league to league, many players may be CFL free agents but under contract to a IFL or UFL or whatever team. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_13#Category:National_Football_League_free_agents.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons above. This kind of thing is a little difficult to maintain, as it's not clear what qualifies one for inclusion or how long they remain there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:15, 24 August 2009 (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:Buildings and structures of the Pas-de-Calais[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: Rename Category:Buildings and structures of the Pas-de-Calais to Category:Buildings and structures in Pas-de-Calais. --Xdamr^talk 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures of the Pas-de-Calais to Category:Buildings and structures in Pas-de-Calais

Nominator's rationale: Rename because (a) the standard format is "Buildings and structures in Y", not of Y; and (b) the name of the French department in question to which the cat refers is Pas-de-Calais, not "the" Pas-de-Calais HeartofaDog (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename indeed it is "in" and not "of". According to Wikipedia:Cfd#Speedy_criteria this is a speedy criteria. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there is the complication of the additional "the", which I thought might disqualify it as a speedy.HeartofaDog (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (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:Endocannabinoid reuptake inhibitors[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endocannabinoid reuptake inhibitors

Nominator's rationale: Delete: the existence of an endocannabinoid reuptake transporter is doubtful and/or controversial. Two of the three articles in this category URB597 and AM404 are believe to have primary actions in inhibiting the ligand degrading enzyme FAAH (and thus may not even belong in a reuptake inhibitor category), the other article is not specific to endocannabinoids. If this category is to be renamed, I would suggest Category:Inhibitors of endocannabinoid degrading enzymes which could be applied to three articles (both URB597 and AM404 but also JZL184); however, I don't think it is necessary as the rate of growth of such a category would be very slow.--Tea with toast (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too small (and too obscure, beg your pardon). Debresser (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until endocannabinoid reuptake transporter have been characterized. Cacycle (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2009 (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:French lycée[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: Rename Category:French lycée to Category:Lycées in France. --Xdamr^talk 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:French lycée to Category:Lycées in France

Nominator's rationale: Rename (a) because "Lycées" should be plural and (b) because the standard format for such cats is Schools in Foo, not Foo-ish Schools, as per overcat Category:Schools in France. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they could also be confused with French-language lyceums 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2009 (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:Former political parties in Indonesia[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: Rename Category:Former political parties in Indonesia to Category:Defunct political parties in Indonesia. --Xdamr^talk 22:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Defunct political parties in Indonesia, to make it in line with parent category Category:Defunct political parties. Soman (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. But why do we have "former" categories? Debresser (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (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:Former political parties in South Africa[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: Rename Category:Former political parties in South Africa to Category:Defunct political parties in South Africa. --Xdamr^talk 22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Defunct political parties in South Africa, to make it in line with parent category Category:Defunct political parties. Soman (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. But why do we have "former" categories? Debresser (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (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:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal[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: Rename Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States). --Xdamr^talk 22:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United Kingdom) and to match the main article Distinguished Service Medal (United States). Tassedethe (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's no reason why this should be the default, as the British DSM was every bit as common (if not more so). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2009 (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:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross[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: Rename Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States). --Xdamr^talk 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming to be consistent with other categories (below) and to go with article Distinguished Service Cross (United States Army). Tassedethe (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as I stated below. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2009 (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:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross[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: Rename Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom). I supported this nomination, but for convenience's sake, and given the uncontroversial nature of the nomination, I will also close it. --Xdamr^talk 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross and Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (Australia), and to match article Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom). Tassedethe (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, which also brings the category name into line with the parent article. In the same vein I'd also like to suggest Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross be renamed Category:Recipients of Distinguished Service Cross (United States), bringing that category into line with its parent article and WP:ODM category naming conventions. --Xdamr^talk 13:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nominator. Perhaps somebody nominate Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross for a rename to Category:Recipients of Distinguished Service Cross (United States). I agree with that rename beforehand. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (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:Charleston Southern University Buccaneers football coaches[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. --Xdamr^talk 22:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Charleston Southern Buccaneers football coaches. Tassedethe (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2009 (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:Research institutions in Poland[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: Rename Category:Research institutions in Poland to Category:Research institutes in Poland. --Xdamr^talk 22:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Research institutions in Poland to Category:Research institutes in Poland

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per naming conventions in Category:Research institutes by country. GregorB (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, obvious. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As far as I am concerned, we should allow for speedying such cases, where one or a few categories deviate from a their parent's category convention. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (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.

Bands from[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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Standard categorization is by nationality and then genre if necessary e.g. Category:Welsh musical groups and Category:Welsh rock music groups. Tassedethe (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have several categories by city - Category:Musical groups from Manchester, Glasgow, etc. American bands are divided by state, but this isn't possible in other countries. These city cats seem like a reasonable enough way to subdivide the rather large national categories. If kept these two should be renamed 'Musical groups from '. Flowerparty^☀ 13:50, 22 August 2009 (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:Bilaspur[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: Rename Category:Bilaspur to Category:Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh'. --Xdamr^talk 22:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bilaspur to Category:Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and to match article Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Tassedethe (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator to disambiguate. Welcome to Tassedethe, who has of late made some interesting nominations. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (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:Beaches in Vietnam[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 rename per criterion #4; non-compliance with enumerated naming convention for categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beaches in Vietnam to Category:Beaches of Vietnam

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard name per Category:Beaches by country. Tassedethe (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom to match sibling categories Hmains (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2009 (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:SpongeBob[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently empty and at any rate redundant as there already is a Category:SpongeBob SquarePants. Appears to have been part of a major, if misguided, effort by the user Pokeadder. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category is empty and seems to be a redundant attempt at Category:SpongeBob SquarePants. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 13:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as empty. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (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:Craters[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: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is an umbrella renaming proposal. All the higher-level categories in the Category:Craters hierarchy with "craters" in the name have instructions that they are for impact craters, not craters of volcanic or explosives origins. Renaming them from "Craters..." to "Impact craters..." will make this purpose more obvious and reduce confusion. This was suggested as a separate task in CFM for Cat:Astroblemes. I posted the question on WikiProjects Geology and Astronomy and got a favorable response. Ikluft (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - just in case anyone's tools expect the list to be alphabetical, Category:Craters is listed before Category:Carboniferous craters because it's the top of the hierarchy. The rest are alphabetical. Ikluft (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. Ikluft (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. This has always been confusing even as I was making sure that only impact craters went into this category tree and only volcanic craters went into its category tree. Hmains (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename except possible craters. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is about the Earth, so it should be category:possible impact craters on Earth , and a new cat category:possible impact craters as a parent for it (for non-Earthly possibilities) 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth" would be accurate and acceptable. But let's avoid WP:OVERCAT and WP:CRYSTAL - either "Cat:Possible impact craters" or "Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth", not both. There isn't any discussion in science circles or on WP of "possible" impact craters anywhere else but Earth, where erosion blurs the issue. Though I can attest to the lengthy process to research and confirm one on Earth, as the discoverer/proposer of one possible large impact crater. (It isn't on WP because it isn't WP:N yet.) Ikluft (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

use "Earth" to be absolutely clear on the matter. And I do remember seeing (non-Wikipedia, actual) articles about "possible impact craters" on non-Earthly bodies, and whether they were impact craters or created via some other means. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can go along with "Cat:Possible craters" renamed to "Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth". As for any possible impact craters other than on Earth, that's a separate topic which will need its own WP:RS to establish WP:N. Ikluft (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the renames as nom. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To distinguish from volcanic and explosive craters. Notice that there are even more types of craters. Ants create waste craters at the exit of their nests[1], and there is the antlion, an insect that makes a crater in sand and places himself at the bottom (a super-sized version called Sarlacc appears in Star Wars, when Jabba the Hutt condems Luke to jump into the crater and get eaten). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per previous discussion. Without wanting to be a nuisance, but did somebody check whether all craters in all those articles are indeed impact craters? Debresser (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked most of them. They're doing pretty well now. I recently sorted confirmed and possible impact sites. Those listed in Category:Earth Impact Database are the officially confirmed impact sites. Though the EID listing has some picky rules so some like Alamo bolide impact which have proven shock features but an unknown outline/diameter, can't be listed. So Category:Possible craters (proposed to be renamed to Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth) has those which are confirmed but not in EID, or notable suspected impact sites which are not confirmed. I also renamed two list articles for Alaska and Arizona and removed them from Category:Lists of impact craters on Earth (a cat which already has impact craters in its name and is not part of this proposal). Volcanic sites may still be listed in some of these categories. We can more easily sweep volcanic sites to subcats of Category:Volcanoes after this CFR is done. Ikluft (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Differentiates between impact craters and volcanic craters. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2009 (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:Poisson processes[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: Keep. Non-admin closure. Jafeluv (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The guy who just created this category has added to a large number of unrelated articles (or related only in mentioning Poisson). It would be easier to delete it and start over than to inspect all the bad entries and fix them individually. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He obviously has no clue what a Poisson process is. Someone should take that toy away from him. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am also not sure quite what a Poisson process is, having not done statistics to the level where they were taught, but most of the articles that I sampled did seem either to be about a version of it or a phenomenon that it described. If there is rubbish in it, by all measn eliminate that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can thank and applaud user LutzL, whose effort has removed a substantial number of articles related to Poisson, but not to Poisson processes. Rather puts lazy bums like me to shame. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. Thanks, LutzL. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems that editor has actually done not so bad an effort. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2009 (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:Apartheid in Namibia[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: Rename Category:Apartheid in Namibia to Category:Apartheid in South West Africa. --Xdamr^talk 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category only comprises two empty subcategories, and a bunch of articles not directly related to the category's topic. uKER (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 1. Neither of the subcats is empty. 2. The bantustans were a racist/apartheid construct. Occuli (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Apartheid in South West Africa, as that was the name of the territory at the time in question. This will, I think better focus the category on the articles listed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I may be biased as the creator of the category, but any category with dozens of articles and two subcategories seems to be useful to me. As for a name change, I think using the current name is better, since users are much more likely to know Namibia than South West Africa. However, if a change is the consensus, then I will support it.--TM 13:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Apartheid in South West Africa per Peterkingiron. There is no apartheid in independent Namibia. No opinion on keeping vs. deleting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Apartheid in South West Africa. Category:Apartheid in Namibia is revisionism, which should be avoided - it's like using the name Zimbabwe for events that happened when the country was still officially called Rhodesia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not entirely correct. The United Nations recognized the area as Namibia in 1968 and the apartheid government didn't leave the area until 1989.--TM 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. He is correct that the articles are not related (and indeed this category will have to be removed from them even is this category will be kept or renamed), and the two subcategories can stand by themselves. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is unrelated about apartheid and bantustans? or apartheid and racist military forces aimed at suppressing opposition? These are the hallmarks of the apartheid ideology.--TM 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not a subject matter expert, but my understanding is that Apartheid refers specifically to the racial segregation laws and policies of South Africa. If that is the case then this category is improper because there was no such thing as "apartheid in Namibia". We have no article Apartheid in Namibia and the apartheid article does not discuss Namibia. Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering South West Africa was under South African rule from World War I until 1990, the system of bantustans segregation there could be considered essentially the same. To argue that it can't be apartheid because it wasn't in South Africa would be akin to arguing NKVD special camp Nr. 7 was not part of the Gulag because it was not located in the Soviet Union.-choster (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Apartheid in South West Africa per above.-choster (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (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:The Grantville Gazettes[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 Category:The Grantville Gazettes to Category:1632 series books. --Xdamr^talk 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Grantville Gazettes to Category:1632 series books

Nominator's rationale: The 4 articles here are books in the 1632 series. There used to be about 15 more articles in this category before they were AFD'd. Support merging into the main book category. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator, since this category is too small and articles can be categorised well in Category:1632 series books. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2009 (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:Assiti Shards multiverse[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category has only 2 members and 1 subcategory. Reading the main article, it appears that none of the works in this multiverse, besides 1632, have articles. Not big enough to support a category. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- too little content for a category. A navbox would do it better, if anything is needed at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a navbox already exists, it was done in the last attempt to cleanup 1632, I think 2 years ago. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed is not needed, and the 1632 subcategory can stand on its own very well. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (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:Funk films[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Small category, seems unlikely to grow. There doesn't seem to be a clear definition of what a funk film is; the sole article in the category, Good Burger, isn't verified as a funk film. — Σxplicit 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some doubts about the whole Films by music genre category were expressed recently at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_29#Category:Film_genres_by_music_genre. In this case, it think it's clearly a case of delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as small and ill defined. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (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.