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 pages contained in this category are not actually translations by Seamus Heaney, but rather works translated by Seamus Heaney. The translations do not have their own pages, not being independently notable, and if every article on a work had half a dozen or more translator categories added on, we would have a big mess on our hands. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should only add translations by person x when the article is about the translated thing, not the think in its original language. I just shudder to think what would happen if we allowed this to continue and put the Bible in the applicable categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category does not need any more links nor to allow any more information about translations or any other other usage to continue.--Corusant (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2011 (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:Translations by Christopher Kasparek[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 pages contained in this category are not actually translations by Christopher Kasparek, but rather works translated by Christopher Kasparek. The translations do not have their own pages, not being independently notable, and if every article on a work had half a dozen or more translator categories added on, we would have a big mess on our hands. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (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: No need for such a specific category. Vocalists and non-vocal artists can well be listed under Category:Synthpop musicians. SnapSnap 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any good reason to seperate out singers and musicians at any level? I can see it work when we have things like Category:Tenors, but just singers seems to often create needless potential for overcat. I have a suspicion that the current system is just fueled by wikipedia inertia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2011 (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:No consensus to delete. The naming in this tree may need a rethink - "Free" refers to Free software but the current style can confuse. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that Wikipedia is supposed to act as a directory for these. Don't see real usefulness in the category. Jasper Deng(talk) 16:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Part of several established category structures. Categories are not 'directories'--if they were, every category in WP would be subject to deletion. The purpose of categories is to help readers find articles by organizing them into logical groupings. This category does that. Hmains (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main point here is that the name of the category is a little advert-like.Jasper Deng(talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the parent Category:Free, open source video games and various various siblings of this category, it seems that this is just descriptive. They are 'free' and they are 'open source' Hmains (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are we categorizing things as being "free". This seems to be a non-fixed characteristic of things and so not a good way to categorize them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2011 (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:Templates to convert to Infobox Settlement[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 rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Correct capitalisation. Can we snowball this? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not convert the 27 templates and the category would not be needed? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, Convert, then Delete Lets finish this.Curb Chain (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former universities and colleges 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:No consensus (defaults to Keep status quo). Orlady (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I hate these ones because the debate between "former" and "defunct" is endless. Nevertheless, Category:Defunct universities and colleges in the United States is more populated. PS, is there a better category for universities which are not defunct but have moved to a new place? For example the Ukrainian Free University is not defunct, but it formerly was in Vienna, and then Prague, but is now in Munich. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the first one be better called "Formerly Roman Catholic ..."? Ucucha 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would much prefer to rename this part of the Defunct tree to Former. "Former universities and colleges in Vienna" and "Former universities and colleges in Prague" would cover the Ukranian Free example, as well as places that are defunct. "Formerly" is a clever try, but in effect it implies a category intersection for converted organisations. I think it would be more useful to have "Former" covering all ex-situations: closed/ relocated/ converted. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really do not have an opinion on the defunct/former issue. I think we need to have a discussion that encompasses the two terms, and decided 1-when it is worth seperating things that are defunct out from things that are not 2-when it is worth categorizing things by qualities they used to have (former women's colleges comes to mind as a possible example of this) and 3-Possibly a discussion of why we have the two distinct terms. I would say a former college is something that used to be a college and is now something else (it is more common when we are speaking of women's colleges that are now co-ed, but in theory a college could stop accepting students, Dropsie College might be this, I do not remember all the complexed particulars of its existence) while to be defunct the institution does not exist at all any more. I guess something can be a former women'c college and a defunct college in Massachusetts, and I am not sure if to be such it had to become co-ed at some point. This is a complexed issue and I think we should seek a way to get more discussion than the nomination of one cat for CfD will in general generate. I really am wondering if we really just need a better system for notification about CfDs, such as a way to get CfDs notified in relevant project pages, at least when they involve substantial changes as opposed to minor tweakings, changes that depend on the content, use and meaning of the terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (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.
