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: Another ill-advised new category scheme from User:Target for Today, I believe. The category description reads: "This category is for geographic ares [sic] which are open fields (unforested), e.g., for farming, baseball, oil wells, etc.." This is a bizarre one: I suspect that farms, baseball diamonds and oil wells are to be grouped if they trivially use the word "field" in the name. And indeed, the creator has placed this in the Category:Place names category tree, so that would seem to be the logic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is indeed ill-advised. Occuli (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This category is in fact not totally misconceived, but I very much doubt that we need it. Historically, a field may have been a large open area in contrast with woodland. Later it was used for the Open fields of a medieval village practising a three-course agricultural rotation. Now it has become a general word of agricultiural land, whence sports field. Nevertheless, I do not think we need this category at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (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.
Delete – it's a variation on WP:OC#PERF. A top military person will have been in dozens of battles. Occuli (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is far too like a Performance by performer category, which we do not permit. WE have been getting far too many Gettysburg categories. CAn an admin warn the perpetrator to stop? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (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:Merge. Revisit the final name if the article location changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge to the pre-existing category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge or rename. Since the main article is at Armory (military) probably best to keep that spelling as the main one. If the reverse merge is not chosen, then we should consider Category:Armories (military) for both. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, for the reason Vegaswikian states. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK tagged and added above as the rename that seems to have consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Armouries. Even Canada is using that spelling, so that "Armory" appears to be a purely US spelling. Also Rename article Armory (military) to Armoury, as this is clearly the primary usage, with the present dab article becoing a dabpage with the usual hatnote on the present article. The other uses are comparatively obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Canada uses "ou" spelling, not "o" spelling, for English words that have variable ou/o spelling, for the most part. Canada uses "ize" spelling, not "ise" spelling, for the most part. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pending a rename of the main article, there is no reason for the parent category here to not match the spelling of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC discussion a short while ago about whether to make such notifications obligatory, I think. I also think I'd notified WP:MILHIST a while back about another CfD, with no response, from what I could discern. I don't feel a need to flag it there, as I suspect American and Commonwealth country military editors would have the same positions as the larger community. But please do, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (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:Who's Who Among Students in American Universities & Colleges Alumni[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.
Delete -- This is a meaningless category. We categorise people according to the college they attended, not according to appearance in a book (which I think must be waht this is about). Tthat would be much too like a performacne by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually anyone who pays a fee can be listed in this Who's Who and many others. Yours truly received such a solicitation when he was a student— presumably because it was a name-brand institution, and not on account of his grade point— demonstrating how truly meaningless it is.- choster (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2012 (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:Bangladeshi people of West Bengal/Assam/Tripura/Orissa/Bihar descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete or perhaps rename to Category:Bangladeshi people of Indian descent. The title cherry picks a bunch of Indian states and groups them as if they are somehow equivalent. I can't see any justification for this choice. Pichpich (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Bangladeshi people of Indian descent. The distinction between East and West Bengal is probably insufficient to warrant a category as both many Bangladeshis and West Bengalis are of Bengali ehtnicity, but the rest are from expatriate communities. If there were enough, we could have separate categories for each of Assam/Tripura/Orissa/Bihar, but at present we have a population of two, who somehow manage to have five ethnicities between them! Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2012 (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:Album-cover and concert-poster artists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this defining? Is this a genre of art or a type of artist or simply a loose collection of artists that have a trivial association with one another? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with possible rename. This can be narrowed down to just album art, I suppose, but it tells an interesting thread through music history that isn't told on pages directly. This seems like it can be made a well-defined, bounded category if you don't think it is already. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (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:Media critical of communism and communists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per NPOV. I don't think Wikipedia need such subjective, arbitrary judgments on media categories, and there are no clear definitions, such as the Vin Diesel movie XXX being considered as anti-anarchist. There are no similar categories on other ideologies or religions such as Christianity, Islam, Socialism, and Fascism. GeneralBay (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup or at least merge to Category:Foo about communism. There are many problems here: some are poor decisions in populating the categories, some are unclear scopes and some are just poor choices in creating the categories but the block nomination makes it hard to sort out all these things. Yes of course, XXX in the anti-anarchist category is ridiculous but I think Category:Films critical of anarchism and anarchists is a decent home for The Anarchist Cookbook (film). Similarly, while one can argue about whether The Master and Margarita is really critical of communism and communists, it's hard to imagine a better four word description of Liberalism (book) than what Category:Books critical of communism and communists provides. Mostly, I would argue that the distinction should be made between fiction (where the author's intent is typically hidden to a certain extent) and non-fiction (where the author's intent is typically more transparent). Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on the "under some name" comment, I think we should at least drop the "and communists". After all many communist writers have written strong criticism of fellow communists while still praising communism. Worse yet, I'm willing to bet that somewhere out there is a pamphlet that is all about criticizing the sporting performance of a soviet athlete that happened to be a communist party member. Pichpich (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This categorizing is inherently not NPOV. Worse how do we decide when the media reaches the level of "being critical of". Categories need to be such that we can say "yes this is x" or "no this is not x" in a way that everyone will agree on. This category is not of such a character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (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 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:Merge. Other such categories need to be nominated separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Overcatting - similar categories for American actors of Irish descent, Italian descent, etc. have already been upmerged. Mayumashu (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2012 (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.
