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. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Contains one article (a band which broke up in the 90s), little possibility of expansion. Prezbo (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a longer list of bands who might be so categorised. That could suggest potential for future category expansion. But against that, see also the Cyberpunk#Music article text which is rightly flagged given its inclusionary vagueness. AllyD (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for missing that. For most if not all of those bands "cyberpunk" is clearly just a word a critic has added to spice up a review rather than a serious genre description, though.Prezbo (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite agree on the spice element. The list I referenced seems to cover all corners without making a convincing case that they in any way belong together. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 15 November 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:Scientists Opposing The Mainstream Scientific Assessment Of Global Warming[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. — ξxplicit 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made the same mistake once, so I understand, but you should not have depopulated the category. It's considered disruptive. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. None of the categorizations was sourced, hence they were all WP:BLP violations and treated as such. That is the very difference between the list - which has inline citations and quotations - and the category, which cannot be properly sourced and cannot be put into context, or added with caveats. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I will stick to my 0RR rule and not undo it personally, but I do believe that what you have done was disruptive. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Redirect? After yet another no consensus on the topic I'm not at all surprised to find some minor forking start. Regardless of how much I enjoy having the article there and stuck in a gigantic endless glob of text so large it'd be impossible to spot consensus in it anymore anyway, is needs to be taken care of. The article surrounding this is, as Stephan mentioned LoSOtMSAoGW. It's already a list. Categories are made to contain a number of articles that are particularly notable toward that group... merely a bland list. The list article is more comprehensive, has far fewer way to interpret an entry on it, and persons listed are notable. Oh, and I forgot to ask why we would need a category listing qualified persons when we already have that same list. Right. ...The BLP danger level is already insane on the list page, and I wouldn't want to promote the scuffle more by encouraging forking and eventual intraWiki link webs, to say nothing of it being a form of canvassing to keep feeding new names into the list article. In other words, a total mess that would be incredibly tedious to change if it ever needed to be modified. Redirect to the parent compilation, or delete if that feels inappropriate. ♪daTheisen(talk) 17:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - empty category created with insufficient thought William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category was inappropriately depopulated by the nominator. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then to vote based on the emptiness of the category seems peculiar… ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(pssssst....maybe he emptied the category and then voted to delete due to the category's emptiness because he's trying to upset you and bait you into continuing to do weirder and weirder things...and maybe it's been working so far...) Flying Jazz (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A category is no more or less an issue than the article. Since consensus is that the article does not have BLP issues (I can work with consensuses, even if I did not agree.), it makes no sense to say that the category has BLP issues. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:BLPCAT? There is indeed a difference between category and list. See above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quickly, per nom and WP:BLPCAT. (Note that the category was improperly emptied, but the other arguments for deletion have weight.) — Arthur Rubin(talk) 21:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I object to that claim. The category was not emptied in preparation of the CfD, it was emptied because none of the additions was properly sourced and hence the all violated WP:BLP, which clearly says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CFD process requires that categories should not be emptied while a discussion is taking place. There is a very good reason for this: WP has not readily available means of rolling back to an old version of a category. There is no mechanism equivalent to reverting an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poorly thought-out skirmish in response to recent unpleasant behavior at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, like Connolley blanking talk page posts. If there is a WP:POINT, I don't know what it could be, other than a dedication to the escalation of irrational weirdness on both sides with the intent that a further escalation from the opposition will result in rabies. As for the matter of emptying the contents of the category first, who cares? Flying Jazz (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate, but rename for example Category:Dissident Scientists on Global Warming. The present category is far too much of a mouthful. I do not understand the refernece to WP:POINT, which does not seem relevant. Nor is WP:POV relevant, becasue the category is about those holding a minorty POV: it is not expressing a POV about the people. None of us has a good enough crystal ball to be certain that Global Warming is happening, and that the earth is not robust enough to be able to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The terms "Scientists", "Opposing", "Mainstream" & "Scientific Assessment" are too debateable for a category name, as categories present their categorisation as naked fact. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Vague. And how awfully named, with all those capitals. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the BLP problems with the list are made even worse by a category that inherently cannot include clarification on individuals' stances. ~YellowFives 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this category opens a huge door to WP:OR ... there's a big difference between a scientist who flat out denies global warming, and one who questions the causes or procedures in collecting data, but I can see someone getting labeled with this in violation of WP:BLP because of an editor interpreting what they read by some scientist. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:42, 13 November 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:Mammals classified as fish for purposes of Lent[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. — ξxplicit 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category does not serve any purpose. NotedGrantTalk 07:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be better as an article--especially i fthere are no others than the one listed. DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a sub section in the article lent would be better --NotedGrantTalk 09:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a concept this is something that needs to be in wikipedia - it is useful and interesting information. BUT, where it should be is another question - probably not as a category. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Err, the server's date is still November 7. What's this nomination doing here? — ξxplicit 21:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This entry was moved since the nomination link was for the 7th. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populateRename adding "by the Catholic Church". However, we really need a main article for this, before we can get very far with a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This is not a defining characteristic of the animals in question. We don't categorize animals by their suitability for religious rites, etc. Would make a fine list. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Write the article first. Establish multiple undisputed members second. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If al we have is capybara, I don't see how this category aids navigation. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no good reason for this category. A list is good enough. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 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:Islamist Terrorist plots against United States' interests[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. — ξxplicit 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Islamist Terrorist plots against United States' interests - was created and populated by a single user in an hour. Seems to build on already-existing categories, as I explained on his talk page "All of those articles are already listed as terrorist plots, they don't need each person to go add a new type of category, they don't need "Category:Islamofascist terrorist", "Category:Islamist terrorism", "Category:Islamic terrorist attacks", "Category:Muslim terror plots", "Category:Islamic terrorist plots" and "Category:Islamofascist plots to commit terrorism". It seems he wishes to differentiate based on "interests" (this seems to mean against the United States, which already exists as a category, and against an Embassy, again, already a category), which seems a terribly subjective term. For example, the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge shooting which he added to the category targeted Jews, not Americans, and the 1977 Hanafi Siege was due to a "list of demands", which makes it a hostagetaking, not a terrorist attack - at least subjectively. Sherurcij(speaker for the dead) 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Nope. No existing category covers Islamist plots against US interests worldwide. Certain subcategories discuss Islamist Plots incedents in New York, for example. None duplicate this. The race-baiting strawman in the protest "Category:Islamofascist plots" is noted, resented and rejected. --DaleEastman (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, such statements that deliberately race to an already sensitive highly stereotyped topic could be perceived as a personal attack that could offend another user. Wikipedia policy really tries to crack down on the possibility of future offenses. More discussion is good, but let's sure that any more warnings of actual action may need to be taken :) ♪daTheisen(talk) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is already covered elsewhere as nominator demonstrated (saved me much work!). We're not in the business of creating a category for every contingency or summary of other categories. Actually, if you actually look at a lot of the articles listed, there are already far too many redundant categories. That the category author is rushing about tagging articles on a personal opinion of what fits is also entirely unacceptable. Oh, and that I'm going to head off to RfC/U for the rather... discouraging comment from the author. Wait no. That requires 2 editors warning. I shall go be the second, then. ♪daTheisen(talk) 13:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, took me awhile to find that the consensus guideline was for this, WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. If you have "Islamic terrorist attacks", "Terrorist attacks against the United States", "Violence in Islamic extremism", etc.; depending on what combination you use you could get what the new category wants to get and it would actually be far more precise. A consensus between common contributors in a lot of these types of articles most always use "Islam and antisemitism and Terrorism in the United States" as a very quick and extremely accurate way to flag most things we instantly scream "terrorism!" at. This even lets readers go read the Islam-related article where it discusses matters of non-violence as well, which is something we oft forget. ♪daTheisen(talk) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:No again. Islamic attacks IN the US is a subcategory. The USS Cole bombing, or 1998 bombings against the US Embassies in Africa did not occur IN the US and do not belong in that category. Similarly the category is a subcategory of Terrorist attacks against the US. The Red Brigades murder of Gen Dozier, for example, was not an Islamist terror attack. Why are you so desperate to censor this bit of information? --74.248.35.168 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, time for a puppet report. Oh, and you're not being censored in any way since it's all already right there in the encyclopedia. If anything you're trying to add POV into the encyclopedia since half the things you added into this category didn't have the word "Islam" or even "Terrorism" in them. That's just careless. ♪daTheisen(talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you're not a stickler for all rules only the ones might that work in your favor, eh? Your violation of the "No Personal Attack" rule is noted and resented. --74.248.35.168 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thiough your opinion is entirely welcomed, it's best to reserve such statements for user talk pages, or not say them at all. It is required to leave a notice of administrator reports filed on a talk page, however. It seems we've lost the discussion of the deletion proposal, so I'd prefer to get back to that. ♪daTheisen(talk) 20:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that I consider a Usenet poster using the "name" "Dale Eastman" to be distruptive there, although I don't know if this is the same person. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Against US interests" is too vague. "In the US" is acceptable. (And, even if kept, all those articles and categories in the US should be removed from this category. I'm not going to do it, but it would be appropriate immediately even if kept.) — Arthur Rubin(talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too vague. Would an attack against an American ally constitute an plot on an interest? Would a plot in an area that had significant economic interest to the American government or American companies constitute a plot on an interest (ie. would an attack on Saudi oil fields constitute this)? What about an attack on an Italian cruise ship, that happened to include some American passengers? What about an act of terrortism that was conducted by people who happened to be Islam, but did not carry out said event in the name of their religion, but instead for socio-economic reasons (like the Munich Olympic attacks). It think there is too much fuzziness in terms of what constitutes an attack by Islamists, and what constitutes an American interest. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is very clear that the attacks on USS Cole and on their East Aftican embassies were against US (or US interests - perhaps "US National intersts"), even though not in US. This is an adeqautely defined and closed category. Attacks in which some US citizens (or US Jewish citizens) happen to have suffered ought not to be included, sicne the target was not the USA as a nation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 'US interests' is just an expression of American exceptionalism. Try substituting 'US' with any other national denomination, and the absurdity of the wording becomes obvious. --Soman (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. "Against U.S. interests" is too vague and subjective. Commentators disagree all the time what American interests are in fact, so it doesn't make much sense to categorize in this way. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a coverup or conspiracy by "Ibrahim Cooper" [sic][1]. For the purpose of this category, what is an "Islamist Terrorist" ("terrorist" should be lowercase, incidentally) what is a "plot," what are the "United States' interests"? Can there be consensus as to how to make the category well-defined, encyclopedic, NPOV, and a worldwide view? If someone in favor of the category can lay out a good argument, maybe I could support the category. Шизомби (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DaTheisen makes a good case that this is best covered by the intersection of other categories. ~YellowFives 18:56, 11 November 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 or rename. We shouldn't have a slash in a category name like this, and this category seems to be better covered by other categories. If kept, give a better name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge: Do not delete -- This is an attempt to provide a category for folk music by nationality, but on a wider basis than a purely natioanl one. We do not usually categorise by continent, but the articles are mostly lists on a wider basis than single countries. I see two possibilities: merge with Category:Folk music by nationality (currently its subcategory) or move subcategories to Category:Folk music, and place the articles in a new Category:Lists of folk music traditions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a better name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire people trying to do good things on Wikipedia, but this name is awkward. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if deletion is on the table, notification should be given on the talk page of all categories and pages that are in this category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am responsible for the category and its name: I apologise for its evident unweildiness and for failing to complete a daunting task to date. Check my record: I have re-categorised and edited hundreds of music pages. There's a reason for the name; categorisation has been made difficult by different use of different terms by different editors: there is controversy and no consensus across several related fields (even including the very meaning of the words "genre" and "style") that has so far remained unresolved and made clear categorisation impossible to achieve. In the present context there is considerable confusion between the categories/genres "world music", "traditional music", "indigenous music" and "folk music". The awkward name of the category is my attempt to achieve better linking between articles so categorised, and it still seems to me the only immediate way to make progress in this necessary aim. Please do not delete or rename in the absence of a consensus over a better way to achieve it. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 01:44, 11 November 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:keep. — ξxplicit 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I bring this up to generate some discussion. There is no reason why Eastern Catholic schools should be excluded from this cat. In many countries I am sure that Roman and Eastern Catholics operate seperate schools, and in that case, fine, seperate them. But places like Canada the same Catholic school hierarchy runs all Catholic schools, for Latins and those from other rites. It also beter fits the main article Catholic school. I have listed this nom at wikiproject Catholicism and wikiproject Schools--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is there any information regarding how many nations make a distinction, and those who don't, or moreover, any idea about the number of schools which would fall into each case? LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No information at hand, but the issue of "Roman" being redundant, and even contradictory to the meaning of "catholic" is a very old bit of trivia not worth us getting into. The catholic schools consider themselves to be "roman catholic schools". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the name of the Church and this is the name of its schools. Others schools go into other and appropriate categories of their own. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is the name by which the Church is known to distinguish it from any other form of Catholicism which should have their own categories they should not just be grouped together. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely, Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome and hence a variety of Roman Catholic (but using different forms of worship). Other manifestations of Catholicism can (if necessary) have theri own categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was leaning this way, but wanted to make sure I wasn't missnig anything. Given the rationale above, I could see why there might exist a "Canadian Catholic school" category", but I sense that this is not the case in most places, and thus there should not be such a broad category applying everywhere. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are two different things. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the naming standard within the structure and to clarify inclusion criteria. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since half the oposition believes that this Cat should cover Eastern Catholic schools and half does not, I feel that consensus does not yet exist on this topic despite everyone claiming to want the same non-action. So which way should the inclusion criteria go? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 November 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 or Merge. Duplicates Category:Defunct railway stations. OR failing that, make one for stations that are no longer used but still standing, and one for stations that no longer exist. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as duplication Keith D (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a duplication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, eh, just to be on the safe side, I'd say merge. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as category creator; I hadn't known the other cat existed. I do think we should follow Kev's suggestion and create one for "demolished railway stations" as well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. All of the US stations were moved into the US subcategory. Any decision on them should apply to all and not just the ones that were not correctly categorized. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 14 November 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. Acadia was never sovereign state nor did it ever posess a seperate military. These were forts of France or of Great Britain that happened to be in the geographic area of Acadia (today's Maritime Provinces of Canada). The content is better covered by cats by state like Category:French forts in North America and cats by locale like Category:Military forts in Nova Scotia. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Acadia was a political subdivision, so I don't see why it shouldn't exist, afterall, Nova Scotia is not a sovereign state either, but you say that's an acceptable category. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Acadia was one of a number of French colonies in North America, Louisiana and Canada being others. I do not know enough Canadian history to know if all French forts were reoccupied by the British after the conquest of the area. Possibly Rename from "of" to "in". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to in Acadia. There was a useful and valid purpose for this, and it's legitimately analogous to any modern "forts in (province/state)" subgrouping, though in retrospect I probably didn't choose the right conjunction. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 14 November 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 16#Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide. postdlf (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)