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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I suggest making the change for consistency with other fields of philosophy (e.g., philosophy of science, philosophy of history, etc.) and for consistency with common usage. hargettp (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on basis of nominator's rationale. --Morton Shumway (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one article and one file (the company logo), not likely to expand. Prezbo (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the logo is not free it is likely a copyvio having it in the category so it was removed leaving just the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A one-item category isn't necessarily something to delete, but there's little point in keeping a category for a company when there's unlikely to ever be anything in there but one article. Smacks a bit of WP:VANITY. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 01:16, 14 June 2010 (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:German and Scandinavian legendary creatures[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category as it is uses 'German' in an unusual way and admits this in the category description. The standard way to describe something which includes all of the Germanic-speaking peoples (the Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, English etc), as it seems is the intention of this category, is 'Germanic'. Munci (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I'm not entirely certain the category is needed at all any more; Category:German legendary creatures and Category:Scandinavian legendary creatures have both been created since, and Category:European legendary creatures has been created as a higher-level category. When I created this one, it was a direct subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures by culture, as part of my broader effort to categorize a large number of previously-unsorted legendary-creature articles. "Germanic" would probably have been a better name to begin with, and I no longer remember why I chose this one. I suppose the category would still be marginally useful for categorizing creatures that appear across a broad variety of Germanic cultures, such as Elf. Shimeru (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2010 (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:RAFAEL Armament Development Authority[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: The company changed its name (not sure when), but the main article and the official website both indicate that Rafael Advanced Defense Systems is the correct and current name. Moved from WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon(talk) 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 18:29, 6 June 2010 (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:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work gorup members[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think the word "gorup" may simply be a misspelling of "group" (hence suited to a speedy rename under C2.A) but I may have overlooked something and thought discussion might help uncover the legitimate reason for the use of "gorup". 24.44.14.186 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to rename, not to delete the category. Wikiprojects often have member categories, for examples take a look at User:John Carter/Userboxes which lists approximately 125 wikiproject membership categories. Note also the Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject which contains 770 further categories of wikiproject participation. It is indeed rather common for a wikiproject to offer a category for its participants. 24.44.14.186 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to correct stupid error of bozo who can't even spell right. Thanks for catching that. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename: Typo fixes do not need to go through full CfD process. NB: Just because the nominator posed a "rename or not" question does not mean that everyone at CfD is limited to only discussing those options. There's nothing procedurally wrong with a "delete" !vote (though obviously the delete rationale is faulty in this case). This kind of begs the question, though, of whether or not there ought to be some kind of clearer naming convention for participants in WikiProjects and their task forces/work[ing] groups. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 01:14, 14 June 2010 (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.
Oppose per like nominations. We are not here to rewrite history. Keep this category, and make it a subcategory of Category:Wuxi Classic. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; this has nothing to do with "rewriting history", but having a sane number of categories. If we created a separate article and category for every rename of something, the category system would be next to useless (note that we do not have a Category:The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, nor separate articles for David Johansson and Buster Poindexter). For someone like a person, use the most common name. For something like an event, that people call by its current name, use the current name. I.e., use common sense. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — This doesn't re-write history – the only purpose of categories is to organise articles - we are not retrospectively renaming the individual articles for the years it was the Jiangsu Classic. Making it a subcategory of the Wuxi category would be counter-intuitive. The snooker articles shouldn't be organised according to sponsorship since this can change on an annual basis. The main article has been renamed to the Wuxi Classic (since it's the convention to use the current name) and it has sub-articles for the previous years (which includes Jiangsu years) so the category should really reflect this organisation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2010 (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.
American hip hop groups, musicians and producers by location[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Like rappers in earlier discussion, these musicians and groups don't need to be categorized by what coastline they're from, either. Karppinen (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not being an expert, but if any of these are legit subgenres of hip hop, then they shouldn't be deleted. If they're an attempt to categorize by location, then I agree. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2010 (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:rename. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match naming of the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2010 (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:Cities and towns of the Sassanid Empire[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These are all cities. One member of this category, Takht-e Soleymān, was neither a city nor a town, and it is already in category:Sassanid castles where it belongs, so I removed it. All the rest are cities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2010 (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:rename. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (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:Cities and Towns of Cumberland, MD-WV-PA[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. We don't have "Cities and Towns" categories for U.S. places, as cities and towns are split into their respective categories. This, however, has cities, towns, villages, and unincorporated communities, so it should have the catchall "Populated places".Mike Selinker (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thinking. If the other categories need renaming, then that can be discussed in another nomination. Clearly the last points raised by Black Falcon need a discussion, but I don't see why the need for that discussion should prevent us from cleaning up this straggler from the city and towns cleanup. I don't see the objection here being to dropping the city and town, just which target to use. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2010 (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:Cities and counties in the Tampa Bay Area[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (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:Rename all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article name for this region is San Diego–Imperial, California. The "Cities and towns" category contains only one city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2010 (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:withdrawn. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't see what the distinction is here between "literature" and "fiction." "Post-apocalyptic fiction" is a parent category, and every article in this category is about fiction.Prezbo (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Post-apocalyptic literature is the subset of post-apocalyptic fiction which is in written form. This is in contrast with other subsets of post-apocalyptic fiction, such as films, games, and television series. It is an appropriate subcategory of Category:Literature by genre. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, I'm sorry for not seeing that. Consider this withdrawn.Prezbo (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2010 (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: A relist of two categories from this withdrawn sub-nomination that make very little sense at all. These are "Cities and settlements by people who named them," a structure for which no other namer of places is used. Also, the term "Settlements" is falling on disfavor on CfD except for very specific political designations, which these categories don't have. Plus the entries themselves are all over the place; some have only tertiary connection to the conquerer. At best listify, but better if deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on my previous comments on these, I don't see this being the best choice for a category given the overly broad inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the major CfD discussion on the renames closed with these two listed as listify. So two choices, withdraw and let the listify work go on or leave this open to see if there is a consensus to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to follow the closer's decision. So what would the listified articles be called? "List of populated places whose identity comes from (X)"?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The decision did not specify. So I guess another option here would be to decide on the list article's name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call them "List of populated places whose identities come from (X)" and then if someone wants to rename later, they can do so with impunity.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (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:Writers who illustrated their own writing[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: Doesn't seem like a notable intersection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taking notable examples such as Alasdair Gray and Mervyn Peake, I'd say this is more than an intersection, but an integral part of the way they work and they way those works are received. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – what is being intersected? I would agree that writers who also illustrated would be perhaps difficult to justify (ie Category:Writers intersected with Category:Illustrators) but this is 'Writers who illustrated their own writing'. Occuli (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare that I disagree with Occuli but I'm still not completely convinced that this isn't a trivial intersection. Plus, it just seems, well, like a weird category -- which is hardly a deletion criterion, I know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just don't understand the issue here. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2010 (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.
Speedy rename. Hyphenation of compound adjectives is basic grammar, making this a typo. Ergo, full CfD process is unnecessary. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 01:24, 14 June 2010 (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 2010 JUN 30 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)