Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 14 October 16 >

October 15[edit]

Category:Management of dyslexia[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. --Xdamrtalk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Management of dyslexia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough articles for a category. Hardly any of the articles in this category are specific to dyslexia, let alone management of it. Many don't even mention dyslexia. Alynna (talk) 23:49, 15 October 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.

1208 and 1349 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. --Xdamrtalk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Numbers are ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity, to disambiguate from year categories Category:1208 and Category:1349, and to match parent articles, 1208 (band) and 1349 (band), respectively. — ξxplicit 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to address the obvious ambiguity and to match the main articles. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per standard naming, though I'm skeptical of anyone thinking these contain albums released in 1349 (those troubadours could cut a rockin' disc). Or maybe it contains the articles for one-thousand, three-hundred and forty-nine different albums (editor's selection). Postdlf (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 22 October 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.

ABC 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. Mondalor (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "ABC" is far too ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity and to match parent article, ABC (band). — ξxplicit 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article and prevent confusion with any of the numerous other things called "ABC". --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all per nom. Definitely needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 22 October 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:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines[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:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines. --Xdamrtalk 12:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Straightforward case of duplicate categories. The target category is larger and matches the naming of the parent Category:Universities and colleges in the Philippines. RL0919 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 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:United Uniting churches[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. Mondalor (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Uniting churches to Category:United and uniting churches
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article United and uniting churches. The current title is misnamed and miscapitalized. Mairi (talk) 20:22, 15 October 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:Algologists[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. --Xdamrtalk 12:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[NOTE - I have left Category:Algologists as a category redirect. Postdlf (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No one in the field uses the term "algologist". The term used by such scientists is "phycologist", and they study "phycology" (not "algology"). The major journals in English are the Journal of Phycology (published by the Phycological Society of America) and Phycologia (published by the International Phycological Society). This rename should apply to the various subcategories as well, such as Category:Algologists by nationality -> Category:Phycologists by nationality, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support particularly to avoid confusion with the current content of Algology which refers to "the medical treatment of pain as practiced in Greece and Turkey." Contents of the categories should probably be carefully checked. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all botanists (phycologists), not algologists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaning they study algae, not pain? --66.167.135.144 (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; uncontroversial, probably could have been speedied. Hesperian 23:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered it, but the stated criteria for speedy renames don't apply. In addition, the primary category to be renamed was created as a direct result of a CfD in 2005, so there are historical complications. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — "algologist" is ambiguous so perhaps leave behind a category dab page? --66.167.135.144 (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Even if "algology" dates from 1840-1850 and "phycology" from 1875-1880, both meaning "the branch of botany dealing with algae", the term used at the present time is "phycology" JoJan (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current term is phycologist. There's no precedence rule for language, so the age of origin of the term doesn't matter. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 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:Megacoaster roller coasters[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: RELISTED at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24 for further comment.
Suggest merging Category:Megacoaster roller coasters to Category:Megacoasters
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a classification by height and is not really a type of coaster as I read the material. Category:Foo roller coasters appears to be used for the various types. I'll place a notice on the appropriate project page so that that we can get some expert advice about this proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer reverse merge -- I would not know that megacoasters were roller coasters. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 21 October 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:Hypercoasters[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: withdrawn in favor of the preceding discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hypercoasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is a duplicate of Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters. The roller coasters by type categories are populated by a template and this category was manually added. Since Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters was a red link until a short while ago, that could explain why we had two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 15 October 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:Law firms of the Philippines[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, nomination withdrawn. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Law firms of the Philippines to Category:Filipino lawyers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry in this category, it would be much better and efficient to merge it into the larger category. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a law firm simply does not belong in a category for individual lawyers, no matter how few law firms there are. As with other comprehensive schemes, it's not a problem for some subcategories of Category:Law firms by country to have few (or one) entries. In addition to being incorrect, the proposed merge target would preclude this law firm article from being located through that worldwide scheme. Postdlf (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Postdlf. That article belongs downstream in the category tree from Category:Law firms. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming nobody else wants to do this, I would withdraw the nomination. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, just because there is only one entry now doesn't mean there won't be more in the future. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 22 October 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:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada[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. Postdlf (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Sports in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article name that covers all of the contents. Since a few of these are in the city, this rename should not prevent recreation of a category for the city if anyone feels so inclined after the move. This change is inline with the various parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 15 October 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:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska to Category:People from Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, unclear and unnecessary distinction, given that only notable people merit articles, and the category is being used for people at least as recent in history as the 20th century. Seems to be a sui generis category (except for Category:Icelandic historical figures, which is being used differently and should be turned into a -by century scheme; I've already notified the Iceland WikiProject about this). Postdlf (talk) 17:46, 15 October 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:United States Presidents from Michigan[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States Presidents from Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, OCAT, as trivial intersection of specific office held and unrelated place. This is apparently the only such category, and has a whopping one member. Given that there have been only 43 individual presidents (though 44 presidencies; damn you, Grover Cleveland!) but 50 states, most will be sparsely populated. All presidents are already going to be linked to their home state by other categories (Gerald Ford has six other Michigan-specific categories), so this is only going to add clutter, particularly given that in our current system people may be "from" multiple places if they've moved around; Ford was actually born in Nebraska. Easily distinguishable from politician categories for federal offices representative of states, such as Category:United States Senators from Michigan, as those offices are expressly linked to those states. Postdlf (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both an unnecessary intersection and an underpopulated category. --RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Unlike Senators, the state a president is "from" has a minimal effect on his presidential-ness. It perhaps plays a role in getting nominated and elected, but after that, no one really cares what state a president is from (except apparently for the residents of the state, who never stop bragging about it and erects all manner of signs, markers, and freeways reminding people). And there's always competing claims, as now with Obama, with Hawaii and Illinois both claiming ownership. And damn you, Grover Cleveland, indeed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this particular one as having only one representative. But the state a president is from can be quite important, and has been historically. Consider those from Virginia, and those from Massachusetts. Even if its mainly important in the nomination, that's still very important. And residents of a state erecting "all manner of signs, markers, and freeways" is extremely good proof of significance. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Significance" to whom, though? It's a good sign that local residents care, but does anybody (or should anybody) else care? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm from Ohio, a state that can claim 8, which is more interesting about Ohio and the importance it used to have in national politics, than it is anything substantive about the presidency, and it certainly doesn't establish any other connection between those presidents (conspiracy? secret society? the Skull and Buckeyes?). And lo and behold, Ohio mentions this fact. Postdlf (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. An example of a trivial intersection worthy of inclusion on the instructions page. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 22 October 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:Transportation in Volusia County[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. Postdlf (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Volusia County to Category:Transportation in Volusia County, Florida
Nominator's rationale: State name should be included with county. ----DanTD (talk) 13:21, 15 October 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 of Afro-Asian descent[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. Postdlf (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of Afro-Asian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Long-standing consensus has shown to delete mixed ethnicity categories as overcategorization, as shown here and here. — ξxplicit 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay This decision is compeletely biased with no merit. My category is actually better than most of the other biracial/multiracial categories on people who are half black/half asian. Those categories should be deleted and this one should stay...(LonerXL (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete -- The correct way to categorise such people is in "People of African Descent" AND "People of Asian descent", preferably using specific countries (e.g. Nigeria and India), rather than continents. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 22 October 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:Heroes' Days[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: RELISTED at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24. No one seems to support the present name, but there is not yet consensus on how to fix that. Good luck in the next round. Postdlf (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heroes' Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. This category was discussed once previously and there was no consensus on any proposed solution. Various people in that discussion correctly identified various problems with the category, not least of which is the difficulty that trying to identify an individual as a "national or international hero" presents. There are many people who may be considered national heroes in their home country while many others throughout the world (and even within their nations) find them despicable. There is also the question of whether any given person qualifies as a hero on the "national" or "international" level. Harvey Milk Day was included in this category and while he is undoubtedly IMHO a hero (although the Christian Right would disagree), whether he can be considered a "national hero" is highly debatable. I suggest moving the three articles that are actually about Heroes' Days to the parent Category:Observances and renaming this category to something like Category:Observances commemorating individual people. Such a name much more clearly matches most of the existing contents of the category and resolves any definitional issues. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to "honor" but I do think "observances" is more accurate than "holidays" but don't care that strongly. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, in my view "observances" and "holidays" would be interchangeable, with "observances" being a little bit broader, to include also non-"day" observances (e.g., the John Smith Remembrance Hour). I'm not aware of any observances that honour people of this narrower type, so either is probably OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Observances commemorating individual people or something very similar. I'd be ok with "honouring", but I think "commemorating" is better. I'm also fine with "individuals" instead of "individual people" if others prefer that. But "Heroes' Days" as a name has POV issues unless it is restricted to the small number of articles about observances actually named "Heroes' Day". The general Heroes' Day article can move up to Category:Observances, and the other two specific Heroes' Day articles are already property categorized as public holidays for their respective countries. The rest are commemorations of specific people, and can stay in the renamed category. --RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading some dictionary definitions for "commemorate", I agree that it's probably equally acceptable as "honour". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Observances honoring individual people for clarity. I think "honor" is better than "commemorate", as the latter is more for events than for people. --Alynna (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Observances honoring individual people which changes the intent of the category; Heroes' Days is defined as "commemorations of national heroes." To these the proposed category would add some of Category:Name days, almost all of Category:Saints days, and a host of very different kinds of observances like Bloomsday, Queen's Official Birthday, or Alan Turing Year. In short, it would be too broad to be a useful category; Christmas commemorates an individual person, too. If no suitable target can be found, I would simply upmerge to their respective country and month categories.-- choster (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing the intent is kind of the point, because the existing category name has POV issues. The actual content is (with a small set of exceptions discussed above) articles about holidays that honor individuals. That existing categories, such as Category:Saints days, might plausibly become sub-categories of the renamed category doesn't strike me as a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that "holidays that honor individuals" is broad to the point of meaninglessness. We might as well have "Cities with airports" or "Companies named after their founders."- choster (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Category:Days honouring national heroes or just Category:National Heroes Days, but I see no reason not to keep the present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all are national days and not all those being honoured are national heroes. Some are local. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 24 October 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:Indian Female golfers[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, particularly given the existence of Category:Australian female golfers. If divisions by nationality of Category:Female golfers are not desired, then I suggest nominating both for merging to be discussed together. Postdlf (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian Female golfers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
[NOTE - now at Category:Indian female golfers - Postdlf (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization (only one member). Incidentally miscapitalized. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 15 October 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:Rhône[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. I simply kept everything in the category that was there; if anything doesn't belong, as Johnbod notes below may be the case, feel free to change it. Postdlf (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rhône to Category:Rhône (department)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match to main article Rhône (department). Rhône redirect to Rhone, the article about the river. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 15 October 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.

River categories: matching to article names[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:
No consensus on remainder of renames - little support for wholesale elimination of the word 'River', regardless of main article name.
--Xdamrtalk 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Categories names should (almost always?) match main article names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, somewhat less strongly for those removing "river" than those adding a location. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all the ones which become less ambiguous (per Carlaude). Some of the ones with 'river' in at present are definitely clearer as they are (eg Seine, Zambezi). In UK English one would put in a 'the' if referring to the river (eg the Thames, the Limpopo, the Seine: Category:Thames could be various entities). Occuli (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match titles of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming in to match main articles in most cases. The major exception would be if the main article is X (without "River" before or after), but X is ambiguous for other uses. The easy way to tell if this applies is to look for an article called "X (disambiguation)". If there is such an article, then for category naming I would prefer sticking with "X River" or "River X". --RL0919 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euphrates, if not others, IMHO, seems like it ought to have a such a disambiguation page. Carlaude:Talk 13:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on principle it should be treated on a case by case basis. Ambiguity in article titles is much less serious that category names. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why there are separate places to comment below each nomination. I intended the renames to be considered individually, but some editors decided to comment on them as a group. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted individually below) -- The normal British English form is River Tamar, River Thames, etc., hence River Seine, River Tigris, River Euphrates, River Mekong, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Swan River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Swan River to Category:Swan River (Western Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Swan River (Western Australia). Swan River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tamar River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Tamar River to Category:Tamar River (Tasmania)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Tamar River (Tasmania). Tamar River redirects there but apparently the name is too liable to be confused with River Tamar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:River Tiber[edit]
Propose renaming Category:River Tiber to Category:Tiber
Propose renaming Category:Islands of the Tiber River to Category:Islands of the Tiber
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tiber. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the parent to Category:Tiber. This name is too ambiguous for category-space. The Islands category is fine with me either way, but I will support the proposed rename if it is not considered an obstacle to keeping Category:River Tiber. Carlaude:Talk 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this rename would not accomplish anything but the loss of clarification that the category is about a river. It's not an issue of ambiguity necessarily, it's an issue of context. Conformity to the article title in this case gains nothing but loses that bit of information, which can be clearly seen from looking at the article Tiber, but not from looking at the category tag Category:Tiber. Postdlf (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there's the Tiberii. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is: no need to change. If anything is wrong, it is the article that should be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Tiber (river), to satisfy all opinions. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:River Seine[edit]
Propose renaming Category:River Seine to Category:Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine to Category:Bridges over the Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine in Paris to Category:Bridges over the Seine in Paris
Propose renaming Category:Islands in the River Seine to Category:Islands in the Seine
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Seine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the parent to Category:Seine. This name is too ambiguous for category-space. The other Seine categories are fine with me either way, but I will support their proposed rename if it is not considered an obstacle to keeping Category:River Seine. Carlaude:Talk 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why ambiguous? What else does "Seine" refer to? The department in France? What about the fact that there are two rivers in Canada named "Seine"? Under your logic, shouldn't this therefore be Category:River Seine (France)? Seems like overkill to me. Or are we saying that "River Seine" sufficiently disambiguates it from the others called "Seine River"? Splitting hairs with a dancing angel's toenail here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the parent to Category:Seine. If I saw Seine by itself I would want to know whether it refered to the department, or to the river. Leave it as it is - it is then unambiguous. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what about the Seine River issue I mentioned above? Is "River Seine" a sufficent DAB from the others? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me River Seine is better than Seine due to the department. The River Seine in France is the oldest and therefore has priority - the others need the clarification e.g. (Canada). But, I agree it is somewhat illogical. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments re: the related proposed renaming of Category:River Tiber. Postdlf (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the existence of the department. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for the river itself. More Neutral on Paris category, but changing it would be inconsistent with the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Seine (river) to satisfy all opinions. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zambezi River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Zambezi River to Category:Zambezi
Propose renaming Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi River to Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Zambezi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the parent to Category:Zambezi. This name is too ambiguous for category-space. The Tributaries category is fine with me either way, but I will support the proposed rename if it is not considered an obstacle to keeping Category:Zambezi River. Carlaude:Talk 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments re: the related proposed renaming of Category:River Tiber. Postdlf (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is: no need to change. If anything is wrong, it is the article that should be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mekong River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Mekong River to Category:Mekong
Propose renaming Category:Communities on the Mekong River to Category:Communities on the Mekong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Mekong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the parent to Category:Mekong. This name is too ambiguous for category-space. The Communities category is fine with me either way, but I will support the proposed rename if it is not considered an obstacle to keeping Category:Mekong River. Carlaude:Talk 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean other than Mekong Airlines, Mekong Wagtail, Mekong Auto, Mekong giant catfish?
Then why don't we just rename Category:Mount Everest to Category:Everest, rename Category:Atlantic Ocean to Category:Atlantic, and so forth?
Context for "Mekong" to indicate the "Mekong river" can be given much more readly in the text of articles than "Category:Mekong" could, siting alone and context-less at the bottom of the page. It seems that the correct name is Mekong river and we lack a pressing need to change it here. Carlaude:Talk 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your questions is easy. Because the main article is at Mekong. "Mekong" standing alone does not mean the airline, the wagtail, the company, or the catfish. Context can be provided in a category just as easily as an article. (Yes, a definition can even appear at the top!) I would agree with you if the article were at Mekong River—but it's not, of course.
To draw an analogy which is exactly on point—we have Category:Ganges, which reflects the article Ganges. Yes, we have Ganges and Indus River Dolphin; Ganges, British Columbia; SS Ganges; HMS Ganges (1821); USS Ganges (1794); Ganges Township, Michigan; Ganges, Hérault; Ganges Chasma; Ganges (BBC TV series); and Ganges (whaler), among others—but I think anyone would be laughed out of town if they suggested Category:Ganges needed to be moved to Category:Ganges River for clarity. It's the same reason we don't disambiguate Category:Paris or Category:London, even though there are dozens of other places and things in the world of the same names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR (to my meomory). Having only heard a word that could be spelled multiple ways means context is all the more needed.
While we are at this, I have added this page to Category:Ganges for you to show us what you mean. Please show us how you think that for category tags "context can be provided... just as easily."
In the text of an article I can wikilink it while also adding context that says "I have never been to the Ganges or any of its tributraies."
Please add this same level of context at the bottom of this project page to show us how you think it can be done to category tags there. Carlaude:Talk 01:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR." Hm, are you American by any chance?
As for the context, I think I misunderstood you and that we were therefore referring to two different things. I was referring to the fact that the context can be added to a category page as easily as it can be to an article page. I was not referring to a category "tag". If you need the extra word to provide the context on the tag itself, it may just be that you haven't heard of the word used in the usual context in which it is used. Finally, I'd say--don't add CfD pages to non-administrative categories, and add a "please" to that one. Such an action could be considered disrupting to prove a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you add a label or explanation to a category page that is not context. It is just a label and/or an explanation.
The category system itself is so utilitarian (devoid of context) that even when we give categories the best names we can think of, and people are looking at the category page itself, with the names of current articles in category, it will still sometimes not clear the purpose or bounds of the category is, and so we rightly add labels or explanations. But this is not a good reason to give a category a poor name-- and Category:Mekong is not the best name we can think of.
Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system? Carlaude:Talk 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system?" No, it's nothing like that at all. I thought it was unusual that an American would never have heard of the Mekong, what with the U.S. history in the Vietnam War and in bombing Cambodia, etc. Don't they teach that history in U.S. schools? If not, I suppose it makes sense why they don't. (But I don't even know if you are American, which is why I asked.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read my above comments again. Having heard of the Mekong is different, than seen the word Mekong. Carlaude:Talk 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty subtle difference—hearing about it ("heard") vs. reading about it ("seen") ?—I'm not sure what its significance could be in this context, but if it's an important one for you—OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments re: the related proposed renaming of Category:River Tiber. Postdlf (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose many things are named after the River, they should not necessarily populate the river category. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is: no need to change. If anything is wrong, it is the article that should be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tigris River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Tigris River to Category:Tigris
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tigris. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing to Category:Tigris. This name is too ambiguous for category-space.Carlaude:Talk 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why ambiguous? What else does "Tigris" refer to? The asteroid? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tigris is the Latin name for the tiger. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but this is the English WP. Would anyone think Category:Tigris is a category for tigers, especially when the article is named Tigris? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given the use of Latin in Biological nomenclature, yes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • A little far-fetched since tigris is a species name and not a genus, but OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Incorrect and misleading. The word tigris is the specific epithet; it is not the name of any species. Note that this is a modern convention in scientific names. In older scientific texts, especially pre-Linnaeus but including medieval and Renaissance texts, the animal was simply called tigris. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not an expert in biological classifications—ancient or modern—but I was just going by tiger, which says the species name for tiger is "P. tigris" (P. being short for Panthera, I assume). I shorted this to "tigris", which no doubt offended the purity of scientific nomenclature. (I was not too worried about the subtle differences between "species" and "epithets", though some no doubt are.) My point here though was as I said above—this is kind of a far-fetched possibility for confusion on these grounds—but OK. In case some pre-Linnaeans invented a time machine we'd better not change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments re: the related proposed renaming of Category:River Tiber. Postdlf (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is: no need to change. If anything is wrong, it is the article that should be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Tigris (river) to satisfy all opinions. But the present name is surely not correct. The name is not "Tigris River", but just "Tigris". Debresser (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that that would be a good compromise solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose that makes sense. Or we could keep fighting over it. Postdlf (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Euphrates River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Euphrates River to Category:Euphrates
Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates River to Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Euphrates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Saint John River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Saint John River to Category:Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the Saint John River to Category:Bridges over the Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match main article Saint John River (New Brunswick). Saint John River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 15 October 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:Fishes of Michigan[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:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States. --Xdamrtalk 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. None of the included "Michigan fish" (such "Michigan fish" as Atlantic salmon, Rainbow trout...) are endemic to Michigan, but instead are widely distributed, often worldwide. Most of those included are also already in the Category:Fish of the Great Lakes (US) category. Postdlf (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is important, and s an article would be notable be. There are entire books on this particular intersection--see the first two items in [1]. The distribution of animals is customarily written about in this manner, especially in books for amateurs, who are quite reasonably concerned with those they might observe in a particular region. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt that those interested in what can be found in Michigan would want a list of fish that can be found there and that there are publications that do this. But that's only a reason to make sure that information can be found by browsing through Michigan topics (and why I already added this category's contents to List of fauna of Michigan), which is where people interested in Michigan will start. It's not a reason to categorize fish of broader North American or even worldwide distribution by their distribution in Michigan or any other subnational divisions of one country, because most people interested in those species, and starting from the species' articles, will not care about that (most included articles don't even mention Michigan). Such narrowly-divided categories should not be maintained, where to do so would plaster dozens of such categories on most entries. We should probably eventually create Category:Lists of fish of the United States, which you could then add just as a wikilink under "see also" to the relevant species articles, a solution far better than 50 category tags. Postdlf (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since this not an endemic category. If we had one of these for all 50 states, there would be an awful lot of categories on an awful lot of articles. Isn't that the essence of "category clutter"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deleters & precedent. The "Dinosaurs of Idaho" issue. An article would be fine, but the salmon would potentially have hundreds of categories if this were allowed. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Postdlf that list articles are a better way to handle this situation, both for fish and all other biota. Using categories by US state could lead to dozens of categories on some articles. And that's without considering Canadian provinces, Mexican states, etc. --RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- overcategorisation: a Great Lakes category ought to be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge like all similar nominations lately. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 22 October 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:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers[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. Postdlf (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers to Category:Defunct newspapers of the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming format of Category:Defunct newspapers by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support re-naming per nom. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per excellent argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 22 October 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:World Music Awards winners[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.

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 25#Category:World Music Awards winners. --Xdamrtalk 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Music Awards winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The winners of these awards are already listified by year in Category:Lists of World Music Award winners. (However, the lists only start with year 13 of the award; I don't see anyone in this category who did not win an award in the 2001–2008 lists.) With all but a few awards, the regular practice set out by the guidelines is to create lists. If anyone can identify any further listification that needs to occur from the category, that should be done. Otherwise, just a straight delete will lead to no data loss. See older related discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check again, Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston did not win in the present years. In fact from 2001-2008, years 2002 and 2006 are missing. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Check again", brother. 2006 is not missing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a defining characteristic won by the individuals involved. "No data loss", the claim that as long as the information exists in one form it is unneeded elsewhere, would justify deletion of every category in Wikipedia, with no particular relevance to this one, nor does it explain why the list should be kept and the category deleted and not the category retained and the list deleted. In fact WP:CLN argues for the synergistic retention of both the category AND the list, allowing both to exist as an aid to navigation and and as a means of building each one from the other. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've misunderstood his statement re: "no data loss." No one believes that all information should only exist in one form on Wikipedia, nor could that fairly be extrapolated from the nom's comment. What you've instead inexplicably done is criticize the nom's concern that information not be lost.
    • Re: the applicability of WP:CLN, as has been explained before, it doesn't argue that both categories and lists should always be retained, it just says that the existence of one does not, in and of itself, warrant deletion of the other. WP:CLN expressly acknowledges that there are instances in which only a list should be maintained, or only a category, and that the criteria for determining whether either should exist is specific to those individual forms (i.e., lists are deleted or kept according to guidelines for lists, and categories are deleted or kept according to guidelines for categories). No one else reads WP:CLN as you do. Postdlf (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, "no data loss" was not a rationale for deletion. CLN is a guideline, but so is Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients. They are not in conflict if interpreted in the way Postdlf sets out, which as far as I have experienced is the way almost every other editor interprets it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand WP:OCAT re: awards, the concern is that as notable people tend to win many awards throughout their lives, categorizing all of them will just result in a flood of category tags, so these should be limited to the most significant awards in their particular field. What I don't know is how we determine the limit. Why shouldn't World Music Awards eligible for the exception? I don't have a conclusion yet, just trying to focus the discussion. Postdlf (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pertaining to Category:Lists of World Music Awards winners, that category is actually the one that should be considered for any kind of deletion of altering, b/c it is incorrectly named. Really what it is is "World Music Awards by year". There are cats for Grammy award winners and BRIT award winners as well as MTV Europe Music Awards winners. The World Music Awards are amongst the most important music awards that there are (far more important than MTV EMAs) – infact, for non-American/British singers it is usually the most significant award an artist can be eligible to win and worldwide they are regarded as the most important music awards. Apart from their universality, they are probably the only awards show that awards based on merit (due to actual sales). Besides, there are only a few pages by year that exist; looking at this, people potentially would never know that ie Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston have won WMAs, b/c the current existing years to not include them. That is why the cat is needed, and we should try to expand it by adding recipients that are not shown on the current individual year pages. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input...I see from your user page that you work on a lot of music-related articles. So do you think that the MTV EMA category should be listified, or any others pruned, or do you think that there aren't too many music award categories at present? Is there any consensus for a standard among any of the relevant Wikiprojects as to which music awards might merit categories? Postdlf (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GreekStar and AlanSohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_15&oldid=1144513581"