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 (endorse action). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Appears to have been emptied out of process and replaced by {{MarinCountySupervisors}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator. Category changed to template sounds standard. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 25 July 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.
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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Single entry category that is not part of a series. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree. Int21h (talk) 20:46, 25 July 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:Korean rhythm and blues musical groups[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 (move endorsed). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:53, 2 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.
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 (move endorsed). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:52, 2 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.
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:Technical nomination. Appears to have been emptied out of process. This link] shows a well populated category so I suspect that this may well result in a keep and populate. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there is Category:South Korean hip hop groups but this is less populated than the subject of the cfd used to be. ('Korean' is presumably ambiguous.) Occuli (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator (sic), and hunt down and shoot whomever emtied the category. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 25 July 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.
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 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 only has a single article, so it is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This + recent similar ones (which typically contain a single list-article of characters) should be upmerged rather than deleted (at least to Category:Samurai Deeper Kyo in this case). Occuli (talk) 19:51, 24 July 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.
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:Discuss - per the recent close of this CFD along with the consistent deletion of categories at the intersection of "jurist" and religion. On the surface this would appear to be another such simple intersection, but it has been suggested that the continued intertwining of the Islamic faith with the legal systems of various Islamic countries differentiates this from other similar categories. I'm hardly a subject matter expert but it seems to me that with the various categories like those for Sharia judges and Fiqh scholars the territory is appropriately covered without this category. Otto4711 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last debate. The category joins the 2 sub-cats, & many of the articles in the category are better there than in either of the subs, for jurists in modern semi-Western, semi-sharia systems. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should it then be renamed to something like Category:Islamic law jurists to exclude Muslim jurists operating in non-Islamic systems? Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be - I have added a note & trimmed the articles in the main cat to 7 by removing those also in the sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Category:Jurists of Islamic law or soemthing like that. This is (or should be) able about those concerned with Sharia law. It is not a mere religious intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 26 July 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.
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: Brazing and soldering are two very similar processes that mostly differ in the temperatures involved. As such, they ought to be grouped together, and already are. I feel that the category should just be renamed to reflect its contents. Wizard191 (talk) 17:57, 24 July 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.
Films with stereophonic and monaural soundtracks[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete An editor created these two woefully underpopulated categories (the stereo cat has one film: Star Wars) in March of this year. From what I can see, we don't characterize records as mono or stereo: should we so categorize all films? Delete per WP:OVERCAT, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. for obvious reasons, useless. we would have to mention in all the articles for films prior to the introduction to stereo that they were mono, and same for after that they were either stereo or mono, and research all the films for maybe a decade during the switch.such info is not notable unless a film was one of the first from its country, or is a retro soundtrack (cant imagine why anyone would do that unless for budget purposes)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keepWe have categories for black and white films. Why not categories describing the soundtrack of films? We live in the age of home video and I think such descriptions are important pieces of consumer information.Smiloid (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic of the film, imparts little or no encyclopedic information. Wikipedia isn't a consumer directory. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters, and because no one will be deranged enough to populate respectably, when all films before ???? are mono, & nearly all after ???? + ? stereo. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 25 July 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:People from Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry, Ontario[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 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:Rename. Consensus is there for a rename, the issue is capitalized or not. I'm going to go with not (as nominated) after reading this and the article talk page. If consensus develops to change to the capitalized version, another nomination can be made. This was actually closed as a keep by another admin while I was working on the wording for a rename close. After a discussion, Xdamr has consented to my changing the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the suggestion, the sport is now universally known simply as BMX. The parent article is, complicatingly, at the capitalised Bicycle Motocross. There's also some interesting discussion about the use off the terms "motocross" and "BMX" on that page's talk page. Personally, I think both the page and the categories should be at the full name with lower case - as suggested by the nom (so that's a weak support) - but some more expert opinion would be a good thing. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general we have a guideline against abbreviations, but in this case I'd like to withhold. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 25 July 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.
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 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:Ancient and medieval Chinese physicians[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. No reason to combine these into a single category especially when there is a single entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Note re "Ancient physicians of Syria" - I belive that this is the correct designation rather than "Ancient Syrian physicians", since such physicians would invariably not be Syrian, most probably Greek.Davshul (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Medieval" is acceptable in global contexts to describe the Islamic world, where obviously there is no "ancient" option as such (for the culture, not the areas where the culture happened), and rather less so for India and the Far East. But this search shows many academic books using the term, & even in their titles. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Rename. When I created this category, I expected that the then Category of Ancient and medieval physicians would include a number of medieval Chinese physicians, which it did not. Davshul (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two further Chinese physicians have been added to the list - both from the Ancient era. Davshul (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom, since there is (I think) no obvious boundary in Chinese history, in contrast to the west where the boundary is the fall of the western Roman Empire, the rise of Islam, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 26 July 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.
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 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:Fictional video games set in the pre-20th Century United States[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. Will also take the initiative to fix the capital "c" in "Century" in the target category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. None of the titles in this category are fictional video games, rather they are games with a fictional setting. Categories starting with "fictional" typically signify made up things, like Category:Fictional samurai. Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't need "fictional video games" as a category! Debresser (talk) 23:20, 25 July 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.
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 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:Rename per main article and category naming policy of non-capitalization of regular nouns, WP:NCCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Many of the R&R films were uncatagorized so I categorized them. Thanks for bringing them up to spec. Sugarcoma (talk) 16:10, 26 July 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.
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:Upmerge This category was empty when I came across it. I added the Axel F signature tune but that's all I can find. Suggest an upmerge to main category, per WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Great song, though. –xenotalk 04:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nomination to upmerge. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 25 July 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.
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: to match title of parent article Xavier University (Cincinnati), as there are other institutions of higher learning with similar names. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 24 July 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.
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:Delete A poorly thought out and largely ignored category, with three more or less unrelated articles: a main article on Omens, the film called The Omen, and the superstition about Spilling salt. Categories such as Category:Prophecy and Category:Superstitions do an adequate job of grouping the first and last example, and as for the film of the same name, I'd say that doesn't even belong, per WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 24 July 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.
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 (was empty at close). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This company's web site refers to it as "the world's leading production music library." Fair enough, but there is no Wikipedia article on this company since the category's creation, last year. The only thing in the category is a sub-cat for Associated Production Music composers, with one person so categorized, whose article makes no mention of any association with said company. A music library that sells scores from a wide range of composers does not make someone a FOO composer, per WP:OC#PERF and WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Delete them both. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per lack of parent article. — Σxplicit 03:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2 categories for 1 article is a bad sign. Occuli (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G8 as categories without parent articles, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment G8 doesn't really refer to categories without articles. I did delete them but have reversed it on request. I have re-deleted the composers one as empty category though. I will let this cfd run its course for the other one... Regards, Woody (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the other is also now empty, of course. I doubt if anyone would object to deletion and closure with no prejudice against recreation should some articles show up in future. Having said this, I find Sam Spence would be a legitimate occupant of Category:Associated Production Music composers, if it is deemed legit as a category. And Alansohn might object. So I retract. Occuli (talk) 01:28, 25 July 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.
