Category:Recipients of awards and decorations[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. I created this category, but I think the name is could be refined. Would appreciate other comments. My rationale was that there are some awards that are both state or military, such as Order of the White Eagle (Poland) that do not fit into either civilian or state categories. I'd also like to create a Category:State awards and decorations that would be a parent cat to those civilian and military categories, as well as to the mixed ones. I am no expert on the subject, and perhaps this category and the one I created for recipients is redundant if all the state military and civilian orders fall under Category:Orders of knighthood? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad and intertwined to be meaningful. Some soldier who gets some good conduct award from country X has nothing to do with someone getting a knighthood from QEII each of whom fits in this wideranging category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 10 November 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:Speedy rename C2C per CfD result. The BushrangerOne ping only 23:23, 9 November 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: Two Categories with same purpose, propose merging to Category:Namma Metro in accordance with the parent article name - Namma Metro. Thanks -- WorLD8115(TalK) 16:33, 7 November 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:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute[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:Possibly unfree files as a container category for categories with the name "Possibly unfree files from (date)".--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent as creator. I'm guessing a template was feeding this category so I created it so the template wouldn't be filling an undefined void? Honestly I don't know - it's apparently been years, so whatever the outcome... cool with me. JPG-GR (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a Wikipedia cleanup category, and should be named to indicate it, so should include "Wikipedia" in its name. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I proposed doesn't have to be a final name, it could be "Possibly unfree Wikipedia files for deletion". — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:36, 11 November 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:Images of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota[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 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:DeleteCategory:Clip shows only has 20 entries--it's not in need of diffusion and I'm not convinced that the clip show is actually a genre. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 7 November 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:DeleteCategory:Clip shows only has 20 entries--it's not in need of diffusion and certainly not by program. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 7 November 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:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Not enough stuff to warrant a category. There's just a subcategory and a template. (As far as I'm concerned, templates should not even appear in article categories.) Pichpich (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the template. I'm not sure which policy/guideline states that such templates should not be categorized in the same categories as articles, but I've never seen it and it would be unprecedented.Curb Chain (talk) 04:30, 7 November 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:Delete We classify radio stations according to radio format but "classic hip-hop" is not a radio format. It's also not a subgenre of hip-hop and no two hip-hop experts will ever agree on a common definition of the term. This makes it unsuitable as the basis for a category. Pichpich (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no formal definition of "classic hip hop" so to categorize pages as-such would violate WP:OR.Curb Chain (talk) 04:24, 7 November 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:Merge. As per WP:SONGS which states, The songwriters should be placed in either Category:Songs by songwriter (“Category:Songs written by <songwriter>”), Category:Songs by lyricist("Category:Songs with lyrics by <lyricist>") or Category:Songs by composer ("Category:Songs with music by <composer>"). Only one category should be created for each songwriter, so if a songwriter contributes words and/or music then the category should be in songs by songwriter only. Richhoncho (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to merge.
Tinchy Stryder is not a songwriter or record producer, he is an Electroacoustic music-composer/Digital artist. His songs are written and produced by other people. When Tinchy Stryder receives the lyrics to a song for him or for someone else he masters the lyrics to the already written sheet of lyrics then matches the lyrics of a song to the music and beats of the song to match the song lyrics, so basically he puts together songs already prepared lyrics, music, and beats then masters them for a final production by using computer technology, as he is originally an Digital artist by trade, which makes him a specialist in music technology composition, therefore he is an composer not an songwriter or a record producer, only really does he write a song or produce a song. Tinchy Stryder has only written 3 songs and produced 4 songs in his entire music career. So (Category:Songs written by Tinchy Stryder) should be merged to (Category:Songs with music by Tinchy Stryder) and not the other way round. MarkMysoe (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment to nomination. In in light of the comments of the creator of the category and the fact he has already emptied the category in the order he thinks it should be I have reversed my nomination. However I am still at loss to understand the claim that Stryder has only written 3 songs when there were 5 in the songs by songwriter category and 15-odd in the music by category.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – List of Tinchy Stryder songs has some 16 blue-linked songs 'written' (ie co-written in each case) by Kwasi Danquah aka Tinchy Stryder. Occuli (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Now I am completely confused. The only contributor to the list article also says Stryder is NOT a songwriter. If anybody can sort this out while I take a pill and lie down for a while... Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comments – I have re-formatted the list of the 16 songs on List of Tinchy Stryder songs for correction. Their was ment to be a composer by Kwasi Danquah aka Tinchy Stryder section when the article (List of Tinchy Stryder songs) was first created by me, but it was not and instead I putted Kwasi Danquah aka Tinchy Stryder in the section of songwriter, which would make anybody confused as to Kwasi Danquah aka Tinchy Stryder being the co-writer of that particular song on the List of Tinchy Stryder songs. So I have now corrected the format on the "list of Tinchy Stryder songs" and it now shows Kwasi Danquah aka Tinchy Stryder as composer not as a co-writer of a particular song on the list. MarkMysoe (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that seems to have sorted this nomination out. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can be removed when this discussion is closed - you can do that as a non-admin. closure if you wish. Richhoncho (talk) 09:54, 14 November 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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I'd be willing to bet that the Angry Birds franchise will continue to give rise to new articles in the future. But this seems premature. There are only two articles and that includes the main article. The two articles are, obviously, properly linked to one another and the category adds nothing in terms of ease of browsing. Pichpich (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. --McDoobAU93 02:07, 7 November 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:1st-3rd century Christian church councils[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete There are already categories classifying councils by century (see Category:Christian church councils by century) and as far as I can tell, there's no reason to focus on the 1st-3rd interval rather than, say, 1st-4th or 2nd-5th. Pichpich (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the other discussion does not propose deleting the 1st–3rd category, but two others. This cat thus was not tagged for discussion, and it would not be procedurally correct to make a change without a new discussion— which has now begun :).- choster (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Delete this category that was created after the creator made the other nomination. For my reasons see the other discussion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order 2 If the first case is carried, then there will be nothing to merge into if this is also carried. This is premature and presumptuous. Await the outcome of the first case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technical point - The other discussion (proposing merging two other categories into this one) has been closed as no merge/keep, therefore this discussion may proceed as before. Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 9 November 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. Existing category structure to be retained, without prejudice to re-listing to seek wider consensus or to reaching a different decision if an amended proposal is submitted in light of the points raised by Good Ol'factory. AGK[•] 17:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories overlap in contents. While there are articles that could be written that fit here and don't have to do with the Middle East, these aren't them.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As the nominator tacitly points out, the Arab World is larger than the Middle East (encompassing most of North Africa as well), plus there are several states in the Middle East--e.g. Iran, Israel--which aren't Arab-majority. There is inevitably going to be some redundancy/overlap or some awkwarldly-precise wording no matter what you do. I guess since there is a main article with this name, it's worth keeping at this point. If something changes in the article namespace, the categories should follow. I don't really have a horse in this race otherwise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something. I agree with the nom that this one is an outlier. There is an article called Arab–American relations, but the other categories are all "US–SOMETHING relations". "Middle Eastern" is probably not ideal for the reasons set out above, but Category:United States–Arab World relations might be reasonable. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think that's duplicative, but I certainly would prefer that approach to no action at all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's quite a bit of overlap, but it is true that the Middle East and the Arab World are two distinct regions with some overlaps. However, whether there is significant differences in U.S. foreign policy respecting the two different regions is more doubtful, I would say. (Would GW Bush have been able to articulate the difference between the two? I kind of doubt it.) So maybe we really need to come up with a better generic term to merge both of these in to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:09, 20 November 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:United States–Caribbean relations by country[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not much point to this subcategorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:55, 8 November 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.
