Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 16

< October 15	October 17 >

October 16[edit]

Category:Pony Express[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is serving as a collection of articles that mention the Pony Express. In addition the category attempts to organize the entries from west to east based on using the sort criteria. This would clearly be better implemented in a template that included all of the stops. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Remove the towns and mountains, there's still three men (William Hepburn Russell et al.) and corporate HQ building (Patee House). Why not leave them there? East of Borschov 06:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since listing them in a template would be better given their reason for inclusion would be clearly provided. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Create template for the items mentioned by East of Borschov then delete -- A template will normally do the job better than a category, where there are only a few items. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Pony Express}} is in place in the referenced articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are a collection of articles on a highly notable topic. Linda Olive (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep This category was nomintated for deletion while the editor was just starting to build it. It now contains more than sufficient articles and subcats to justify its retention for ease of navigation--the purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 00:53, 24 October 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:Dog harnesses[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Dog harnesses to Category:Dog equipment

Nominator's rationale: Merge. OC#Small. When the two images get moved to commons, this will be a single entry category. Not even sure that if there were more articles, that harnesses would be a good subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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.

Assassinated and murdered monarchs 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: Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Assassinated monarchs to Category:Murdered monarchs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unless I am missing an extremely subtle semantic nuance, both categories seem to cover the exact same topic. The current sub-categorization is extremely messy due to the redundancy between the two categories. BomBom (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. With no case presented to keep these separate we might as well just merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think there probably is a subtle difference—"assassinated" monarchs being those who were killed because of the position they held, whereas "murdered" monarchs being those who were killed (murdered) for any reason. This is likely too subtle a difference though when dealing with monarchs, since it's unlikely any are killed without knowledge of what position they hold, so there's always a bit of a suspicion that it was an assassination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 26 October 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:Microsoft history[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Microsoft history to Category:History of Microsoft

Nominator's rationale: Per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support to pass "History of ..." muster and match parent article/category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The target is a much better title. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 19 October 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:History of the Internet in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to both Category:History of the Internet and Category:Internet in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Based on the current contents it does not meet categorisation guidelines. All of the articles are of only a passing relationship to the category topic. The topic is better served by an article of the same name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is another option. That would be to remove the introduction, delete the current contents, and then populate with articles from Category:History of the Internet. Since Category:History of the Internet is not really all that large at this time, I'm not convinced this is needed right now, but it could be in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Abstractly, I think this category needs to either include all US Government related Internet History, or else it doesn't make sense. I don't think there should be a History of the Internet Category for each country, so what would be distinct here is the roll of the US Government in the formation of the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.132.189 (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Acceptable to delete, once remaining items are appropriate categorized, most likely in Category:Internet in the United States.

Alan, As you know, this category arose following your cleanup and some discussion; I now see that there's already a more relevant category Category:Internet in the United States. At the time of nomination, there were 6 items in this category. I've removed Arundel Elementary School, which we've discussed and disagreed on: I've just found a closely related article which discusses the historic aspects of bringing Internet to schools in the U.S. I've moved Internet censorship in the United States to the existing Category:Internet censorship in the United States. The four remaining items involve U.S. law regulating the Internet or for providing for U.S. Internet infrastructure; what do you think of moving those to Category:Internet in the United States? Further subcategories of Category:Internet in the United States might be useful; U.S. law regulating the internet, for instance, could be a subcategory. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:39, 17 October 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:Burials in catacombs[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a good category, which existed since late 2008. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are probably far more that could be added. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 21 October 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:Burials at Martyrs Monuments[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 to Category:Burials at the Marian Martyrs' Monument. This appears to be the place name in Smithfield, but I too would like to find better sources.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Burials at martyrs' monuments, to fix capitalisation in title. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Burials at Marian martyrs' monuments to provide a better description for the to be upmerged subcat, currently the only content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe because the name don't give me any idea what this, about other then maybe a place where a few people are buried. I'm willing to change my opinion if I could figure out what this is about. Is this one place or just people buried at any one of these monuments in which case there is no reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to see some sort of list article first to demonstrate that this is even notable and able to be sourced, let alone defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 26 October 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:Burials at the Marian Martyrs' Monument, Smithfield (London)[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Burials at Martyrs Monuments, as this category has only two entries and is the only category in merge target. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as Armbrust. I have voted to rename the target above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 19 October 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:Burials in the Chapel of St. Anne, Marienburg (Malbork)[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: 1 delete+1 rename+1 do not rename+Pastorwayne creation = no consensus. Feel free to renominate for a renaming so more input could be gained on that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Burials in the Chapel of St. Anne, unneeded disambiguation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, do not rename. There must be hundred of Chapels of St Anne, so that a disambiguation is vital. However, I am far from convinced of the merits of place of burial categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if burial place is of interest, it could be added to PERSONDATA? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:31, 20 October 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:Burials at Mission Santa Clara de Asís[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 to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – do please stop these historical noms. I have no objection to edits by socks being rolled back soon after they were made but going back years later makes no sense. There is nothing wrong with this category as we have whole trees of 'Burials at XXX' which have survived cfds in the past. Occuli (talk) 18:42, 16 October 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:Burials at Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, Carmel-by-the-Sea[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 to delete and a rename to match the lead article is appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Burials at Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, to match parent article Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:48, 17 October 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:Burials at Spanish missions in California[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: 1 delete+1 rename+1 do not rename+Pastorwayne creation = no consensus Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Burials at missions, to broad the categories scope. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename (if we keep this tree). This is sufficiently specific. Ambrust's suggestion is too broad to be worthwhile, save possibly as a paretn only cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 19 October 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:Burials by place[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: Nomination withdrawn. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is a container category, created in 2008. Edits by blocked users need to be deleted at the time, not years later. Occuli (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I am persuaded by the argiument "Because it is a container category". Kittybrewster ☎ 18:53, 16 October 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:Burials at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Baltimore[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 to delete and a rename to match the lead article is appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Burials at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Burials at the National Shrine of Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton (Emmitsburg, Maryland)[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: upmerge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: created by blocked user pastorwayne using a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 18:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both parent categories. No need for a category, which only contains 2 articles. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Melkite Greek Catholic bishops by diocese[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: speedy deleted as recent creation of banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Eastern Catholic bishops by diocese[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: moot. Was speedily deleted as a recent creation of a banned user but was immediately re-created by another user, which is permitted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was created by me, and I'm not a blocked user. How do I get it back? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was originally created by User:Perryheights. You re-created it after it was speedily deleted, so it's back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 18 October 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:Eparchs of Newton of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church[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: speedy deleted as recent creation of banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted as recent creation of banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Catholic bishops in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted as recent creation of banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by blocked user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Bishops of Great Britain of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Bishops in the United Kingdom[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Bishops of Independent Catholic churches in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Roman Catholic bishops in Zambia[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Bishops in Zambia[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Bishops in Lusaka[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Roman Catholic Metropolitan Archbishops of Lusaka[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: speedily deleted as a recent creation of a banned user. Like all of Pastorwayne's sock creations, they are deleted to discourage PW's attempts to foil his ban, but if the creations are in fact legitimate categories they may be re-created by other users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne under a pseudonym Kittybrewster ☎ 15:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there is nothing actually wrong with this category (other than its creator's legendary inability to choose simple names): the 3 occupants were all Archbishops of Lusaka, a defining position. Rename to Category:Archbishops of Lusaka or Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Lusaka (or should it be 'archbishops'?) per everything else in Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese. Occuli (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5, creation by a blocked user. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 17 October 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:Naturalized citizens of Zambia[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned user Pastorwayne Kittybrewster ☎ 15:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per C1, empty category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:30, 16 October 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:Deaths by automobile accidents[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: speedily deleted as recent creation of a banned user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by bannd user Pastorwayne Kittybrewster ☎ 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per C1, empty category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:30, 16 October 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:Hipsters[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Nearly empty and unnecessary category. The two articles, other than Hipster (contemporary subculture), listed in the category are arguably inappropriate, though I will not remove them. Simply an unnecessary category for a phenomenon which is itself a subcategory of youth subcultures. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nominator. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was half-expecting to click on this and see individual people who had been assessed via WP:POV judgements to be hipsters, actually. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I expected as well. What I found was not much better. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:21, 23 October 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:Massachusetts colonial-era clergy[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Massachusetts colonial-era clergy to Category:Massachusetts colonial people

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC#narrow "If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article." Also merge back into American clergy. TM 20:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because any category can be deleted by umerging is no argument to do so. No reason provided for this change. Change without reason needs to be rejected. Hmains (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More rationale: it is too narrow of a category to be useful, which is the point of the policy I cited.--TM 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename and repurpose to Category:Clergy in the American colonial era and populate to match other such era-categories in the parent Category:American clergy. Hmains (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly renamed). 19 people is quite enough for a useful category. It might be Category:Massachusetts clergy of the colonial era. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my last suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly renamed) 19 people makes for a useful category, and clergy were particularly important. It's not easy to get "category A and B" from the interface, and merging to Category:Massachusetts colonial people (which has more than 150 people) would make finding these by browsing harder. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Adrian (talk) 17:13, 26 October 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.

Beni[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Beni (singer), and to disambiguate from Beni (musician). — ξ ^xplicit 09:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:55, 16 October 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:Brand name biscuits[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 to Category:Brand name biscuits (British style) and Category:Biscuits (British style), respectively. — ξ ^xplicit 01:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brand name biscuits to Category:Brand name biscuits (cookies)

Propose renaming Category:Biscuits to Category:Biscuits (cookies)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This needs a rename to disambiguate since there are different types of biscuits based on the location these are produced in. While proposed as a rename, this could well be better as a split into new names with this functioning as a dab category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the parent Category:Biscuits, which has as a parent Category:Cookies, so maybe these should be renamed to Category:Brand name biscuits (cookies) and Category:Biscuits (cookies).

Oppose. After the proposed rename, what would be the difference between Category:Cookies and Category:Biscuits (cookies)? In the UK, Biscuits (cookies) would mean only biscuits such as Chocolate chip cookie, so the proposed name is ambiguous. Alternatives are a general category such as Category:Biscuits and cookies or add clarification, eg rename to Category:Biscuits (British style). Cjc13 (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:Biscuits (British style) is a better choice go for it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support change to Category:Brand name biscuits (British style) and Category:Biscuits (British style). Cjc13 (talk) 12:04, 27 October 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:Users with Leopard Geckos[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - First, improperly has "Users" instead of Wikipedians. Second, it's an unencyclopedic category that past consensus has concluded isn't the type of category that fosters collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I created the category, I intended to make it appear when someone put this userbox on their userpage. Apparently I didn't do this correctly. Instead of deleting it, if someone could fix this and explain how they did so, that would be great. Unibrow1994 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone could also rename it, something I'm not sure how to do, as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia.Unibrow1994 (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Renaming is one of the possible outcomes here. Just suggest a new name and some reasons for your proposed name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Changed my opinion to Delete because I didn't know what the rule Black Falcon said, until he said it. So now I see my wrong, and go ahead to delete it.Unibrow1994 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your follow-up comment. :) By the way, if you have any questions about renaming pages or anything else Wikipedia-related, you can post your question at the Help Desk or directly contact any active administrator (please feel free to ask me, too). Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:UCAT, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. This is not the purpose of the category, hence it should be deleted. — ξ ^xplicit 22:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The userbox is perfectly fine for conveying this information, but there is no need to create a grouping of users who own a leopard gecko (or any other pet, really). Userboxes should not populate user categories by default, and the two should be connected only when the userbox identifies a characteristic which is likely to be useful for encyclopedic collaboration. In the context of WP:UCAT, this category is also overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic that limits opportunities for encyclopedic collaboration (if any) to just one or very few articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:03, 17 October 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:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests[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 to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Since, as zzuuzz points out, "Fulfil, handle, do, make, grant, perform, undertake - all are pretty much the same verb," we might as well use one that everyone spells the same. There's no clear direction on revision of "RevisionDelete," so I'm leaving that alone.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle revision deletion

Nominator's rationale: to avoid the British English word "fulfil" that is considered a misspelling in American usage and for consistency with the page name of Wikipedia:Revision deletion (even though that page mostly calls it "RevisionDelete"). PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In theory most administrators should be "willing" to handle deletion revision. I wonder if a better name can be thought up that better reflects that these users regularly help with such requests, rather than giving the impression that any admins not in the category aren't willing to deal with such issues. Maybe simply Category:Wikipedia administrators who handle revision deletion? (not sure about "handle" either though, open to other suggestions...maybe Category:Wikipedia administrators who perform RevisionDelete requests?) VegaDark (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"fulfill" is a misspelling in British English. "willing to handle RevisionDelete requests" seems fine to me (better than "revision deletion" since the tool also applies to edit summaries and logs). Rd232 ^talk 11:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Rd232, not seeing anything wrong with it myself, nor any valid rationale above. There is some consistency with the other admin categories. Fulfil, handle, do, make, grant, perform, undertake - all are pretty much the same verb. I would offer Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to receive requests for revision deletion as a possible alternative angle. It's closer to what the category is about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To-may-to, to-mah-to. I don't really see the need for a rename here. It's spelled correctly somewhere in the world, and if I'm not mistaken, more places use British spellings than American. As for the other suggested re-wordings, I agree that "RevisionDelete" is more appropriate to use, and as zzuuzz said, no matter what verb we use, it all comes down to "give this person an orange bar of doom to get something deleted". (This is an oppose, I suppose. Although a somewhat apathetic one.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see any real purpose to this rename other than to assuage those more familiar with American English. Any admin who can't get over it or can't understand what it means probably shouldn't be an admin. I grew up as a cornfed buckeye and I got it right away. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to oppose. I'm not sure that there is any compelling rationale here. This is basically an ENGVAR situation and, unless there is a standard or at least a fairly consistent usage of 'fulfill', I'm happy for this to remain as-is. --Xdamr^talk 23:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other suggestion - as "revision delet(e|ion)" is not a term all non-admins will know, maybe a more obvious title? Category:Administrators willing to delete page revisions? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 23 October 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.