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. Not notable or defining for a single individual in this category. Hell, WineLibraryTV isn't notable enough for an article of its own. Resolute 22:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This a performers-by-performance category (see WP:OCAT), and a very weak one at that. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 10 May 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:relisted on may 26. Kbdank71 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This change would bring the name into line with the standard WPMILHIST convention, harmonise the category with the partner Russian category, and mean that all the infantry divisions, the vast majority, did not need to be moved to a new category. Buckshot06(prof) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose The current name matches most of its siblings in Category:Divisions of World War II; no reason to make this different. If there are non-infantry Soviet divisions from World War II, they need to be added to this category to make it complete. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 11 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category was created for a series of units inside combat corps that serve as that corps' special forces unit. The problem is, none of these units are notable and so far the two or three articles about them that were created were merged/deleted (or will be per no objection if someone is willing to do it). The category has two entries, one of which (Duvdevan Unit) is not actually a combat corps special forces unit, so that leaves just Sayeret Yahalom (which might be merged into Combat Engineering Corps anyway. The category is furthermore not part of any Wikipedia-wide category structure. Therefore, I believe it is redundant. Ynhockey(Talk) 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering that many of the articles were deemed non-notable, the category will unlikely grow, serving no purpose at this time. — Σxplicit 04:29, 20 May 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. Sole article was already in Category:Fjords of Scotland. This looks like it needs further sorting out so of course the article's categories may be changed if necessary.Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This category seems to have no justification. The (only) article describes a sea loch so it should be in Category:Sea lochs of Scotland, not standing all by itself. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the need for the fjords one, and the term isn't generally used in Scotland to the best of my knowledge - unless it is being used to complement other Category:Fjords of Foo categories, in which case it should be a holder for the Firths and Sea lochs categories and nothing more. I note that the Firths one has some parents it probably shouldn't have, unless either Antarctica or New Zealand is part of Scotland - it is more than likely there are also firths in eastern Canada. I suspect a subcategory (Category:Firths of Scotland) may be in order there. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just discovered Category:Fjords of the United Kingdom. Perhaps someone is trying to bring all those sea features together in Fjords (?). We have estuarys for England, Sea Lochs for Scotland, Sea loughs for Ireland. Very messy. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. As to the other categories, I would oppose merging the fjord categories, because a fjord is a not just a Norwegian name for a sea loch, it is a term which refers to a particular type of glaciated sea inlet, which is a distnct creatute from a frowned river valley. The reason it is not more widely used in Scotland is that AFAIK Loch Eriboll is the only fjord in Scotland, just as the only fjord in Ireland is Killary Harbour. So far as I can see, the fjord categories are fine (though I have just done some re-parenting), but the firths, sea lochs and estuaries may need some attention. AFAIK, a sea loch is not necessarily an estuary, and there may be other nuances, so I would suggest that any proposal for merger of these categories should be done with advice from WP:SCOTLAND and WP:GEOGRAPHY. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing merge category. I assume that the contents need to be in fjord even if the article still claims to be a sea loch. I will try and find a ref for the article and update it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:47, 15 May 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 settlements in south east Asia[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: non standard usage of the words south, east, and asia - there is a Wikiproject, a whole category tree and articles that are found with the use of Southeast Asia - I assume eccentric variations such as this with no apparent rationale - unless they are created for some particular purpose - should be rearranged to fit into the existing articles and categories style SatuSuro 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible that the similar titled item on Southwest Asia needs the same treatment SatuSuro 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose My comments would be 1) this is not part of the Southeast Asia project and may not have the same geographic scope, 2) that "south east" is a British English usage whereas "southeast" is US English and not a universal standard (and Wiki tries not to allow one usage to steamroller the other), 3) it's unnecessary and 4) other categories in the "Former settlements" family use south, south west, etc uncapitalised. Otherwise, no problem with this as long as someone else does the admin! Folks at 137 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see where the creator of the category is coming from - but for the nature of category creation I am afraid the US and Uk variation theory is a problem - if one checks against the Australian Asian Studies Association - their publication series utilises Southeast Asia Publication Series usage - my belief is that the lower case usage argument is a furphy. Any article or category that has a Southeast Asian topic/subject/focus can be validly utilised or categorised into the Southeast Asia project or category tree. If former settlements has a group of lower case usage - perhaps there are wider issues here. SatuSuro 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the pre-existing Category:Southeast Asia (since 2004) and the article Southeast Asia. New categories (this one was created in 2009) ought to comply with existing usage and should be part of existing category trees rather than surviving in a semi-detached fashion. Occuli (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match parent article and category. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename by convention for consistency per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 8 May 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. Unnecessary overcategorization. Not well defined. Are these singles that are "live" recordings? Singles from live albums can be studio recordings to promote the album. The category Category:Live albums seems to be sufficient. Wolfer68 (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not a defining characteristic of the single. Occuli (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a Category:Live albums can't there be a Category:Live singles ? Folk 55 (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider say ABBA Live, definitely a live album. Several of its tracks are of hit singles - do we make Dancing Queen a 'live single' or a 'live song'? I would say not. Are there any singles or songs that have only been recorded live? Occuli (talk) 12:04, 8 May 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. Kbdank71 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of science articles by what institution is actively studying them. The category contains articles on genes, and the category pages states, "These genes are being studied by Bioinformatics students in the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota." Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Temp. keep, we will need to clean up after this project, since several of the articles they have created are of dubious notability. While I agree that the category has no long-term future, we will need it to track what is going on. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put them in a list on a user sub page. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if all the students have created their articles yet and I'm still trying to get in touch with the instructor. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not matter. This is an encyclopedia and is not a tool for the university or its instructors. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter to the encyclopedia since these articles may not meet our policies. If the category is deleted before all the students have created their articles, some sub-standard articles may not be noticed. I don't care about whether or not this category helps somebody teach a course, but I think keeping it temporarily will help us clean up any mess the course leaves behind it. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Am now in touch with the person teaching this project. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non encyclopedic category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 12 May 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.
