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) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pointless category that adds no value. --Marco (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (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:upmerge to Category:English singers. 3 participants seem to feel that 'Black' is a good way to categorize English singers, 4 apparently don't, so this was a close one. But there's consensus that it should be upmerged. delldot∇. 05:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I don't think we use "black" as an ethnicity in the category namespace and in any case, we don't categorise British singers (or English singers) by ethnicity. Pichpich (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:English singers (presumably in practice singers from England) and Category:Black British singers. Black British is a recognised ethnicity, based on skin colour and nationality. I have no doubt there are also many Black British musicians who only play instruments. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Marco. Steam5 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per many precedents. In any case, pages with a common prefix can be found through Special:PrefixIndex. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. The problem is that the user has created far too many pages in his sandbox, and not got around to completing them to a state in which they can be uploaded. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous. --Marco (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marco. Steam5 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per WP:OC#Eponymous and numerous precedents with only two subcategories: all articles are easily linked from the topic article and the categories can be linked with a hatnote. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marco. Steam5 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Until such time (if ever) that we have a main article on "Invisible Children" which is distinct from Lord's Resistance Army. Biographical articles about unfortunate inductees who have been "Invisible Children" at one time should probably go in Category:Lord's Resistance Army rebels, anyway. Invisible Children is merely a documentary film about the plight of these children. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN If there is a change to be done, I believe it may be to change the disambiguation of the organization's main article and possibly this category, to match. But that is not a priority for me, at any rate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Enough Project and Bouncing Cats didn't appear to me to be connected with the organization but the others are. If that's the case, then simply pruning and keeping may be in order. We don't add "Inc.", "Ltd." or such after eponymous corp names generally and I wouldn't insist on it here. I'd be happy to withdraw this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... Not sure why either of those are in the category. I'll need to review this again, later. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that Bouncing Cats was added by me last February, under the false assumption that this was a category for articles related to such children, not the organization.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I see that the film did indeed come first, so it is the disambiguation of the organization that may need to be corrected per WP:NCCORP, for the main article (and if necc. the category). WP:NCCORP seems to be clear on such a rename being Invisible Children (organization). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (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: This category does not include firearm brands, it includes firearm manufacturers, we already have Category:Firearms manufacturers and the related subcats RyanVesey 17:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We couldn't do an automatic upmerge since a majority, if not all, of the articles are already in a subcat of Category:Firearms manufacturers. RyanVesey 00:38, 12 January 2013 (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) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Spiny rat is an ambiguous term, which refers not only to the American family Echimyidae (the subject of this category), but also to a variety of Old World rodents. Therefore, the article was recently moved to the scientific name. The category should follow suit. Ucucha (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I created the original category, but the nominator is correct that it is better placed at this new location. The same thing will need to be done with Category:Spiny rat stubs. --Aranae (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2013 (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: I was the creator of the article, and the genre doesn't currently have enough information to warrant it's own cat, let alone it's own article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Suft albums. Whether even that is justified I do not know, but if it is not, someone can argue that in a seperate discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2013 (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. I will check that each item in the category is in the list before deleting. delldot∇. 05:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES and many previous discussions, we don't categorize things that are named after a particular person. A similar category for institutions named after Einstein was deleted here. These are already listified at List of things named after Albert Einstein. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nom, to the existing list -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link between the articles is somewhat artificial. Pichpich (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete i.e. check that trhe existing list is complete before deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (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) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Marco. Steam5 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2013 (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 and salt. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I suspect that this is something we would want to stamp out fairly quickly. There are WP:BLP ramifications, obviously. The definition of "incest" is not clear-cut and opinions on the issue differ from person-to-person and from culture-to-culture—how closely related do two people have to be for a sexual relationship between them to be "incest"? It's also not clear if the category intends on categorizing people involved in illegal incestual relationships, or if it is broader than that and would include ancient people who married siblings or parents, and so forth. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tricky thing here is that there are numerous people who, in the absence of this category existing until a few days ago, were (and still are) instead filed directly in Category:Incest — a situation which presents exactly the same potential issues as this one does, and some that are even worse because the more general topic category doesn't provide context: for instance, it fails to distinguish between perpetrators, victims, alleged perpetrators whose guilt wasn't actually proven, people who are in there because somebody applied contemporary moral and ethical standards to behaviour that wasn't seen as illegal or inappropriate in the subject's own cultural and historical context, people who are in there because they were conceived from an incestuous relationship, and people who are in there because they merely studied the phenomenon from an academic or sociological perspective. So I think there needs to be a broader discussion on whether it's appropriate to apply incest-related categorization to individual people at all and/or how to do so fairly and safely, which would impact both this category and whether individual people should be filed directly in Category:Incest in its absence. Accordingly, CFD probably isn't the right venue for this at the moment — because as long as the people in question could just be readded directly to the general topic category again, deleting this would just shift the problem to another category rather than solving anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy delete if we can at all find a way. This is a potential BLP nightmare. It also does not give a clear guide. Since there have been cultures where it was fairly common for the royalty to marry their siblings (this was done in Ancient Egypt for example) this opens all sorts of messy possibilities. We do not want this category. It is a plain bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the definition of incest is jurisdiction dependent -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think at some level it is worse than that. While there is a legal definition of incenst, people often use the term for a much more specific set of things than the legal definition. It is often a situational term that is hard to have a general or universal meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and salt. Unecyclopediac, unverifiable in most cases and a ton of BLP issues. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- At present we have one article - on a person convicted of raping his daughter, which can be categorised as "convicted of". We also have a "fictional persons" subcat. Here there is no BLP issue, but since what the author wrote will definitely show them guilty of incest, the subcat can be renamed accordingly. I appreciate the difficulty over the definition of incest, but would suggest that it should be related to the law of the place where the events took place. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We do not have an overall category scheme of sportspeople by retirement year. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. It's ambigious as well, as Pointing and Tendulkar are still playing, albeit not Test cricket. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not required to delete. if really there is ambiguity then we can just rename the category title to cricketers who retired from INTERNATIONAL cricket in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamatom (talk • contribs)
What about the other issue? There are no other categories for sportspeople that categorize them by the year they retire. This is a one-of-a-kind, and if it's not part of a scheme, it raises the question of whether it's a scheme we would want to have. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize people by year retired. As far as I can tell we generally only create categories for people by year for birth and death. I see no reason to start allowing year retired as well, since people can unretire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs to be part of a series like the "Years in x" categories. This is recentism. Who will expand it back to the earliest years of the sport? --Marco (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. If a person is notable for having questioned Shakespeare's authorship, then they could be placed in the already existing Category:Shakespeare authorship theorists. But if a person has simply expressed an opinion that they question who actually wrote Shakespeare's works, per WP:OC#OPINION we shouldn't be categorizing by this factoid. The latter is what this category seems to be to me, which is why I have not proposed a merge with the category for theorists. It is not defining for those included—Charlie Chaplin, Harry Blackmun, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category is being used to categorize people by holding an opinion, which we do not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's also speculation, not fact and thus does not belong here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The fact that a person has made some vague statement questioning the authorship should not be enough to put them in Category:Shakespeare authorship theorists, which ought to be a duplicate. If articles cannot go into that category, they should not have a category on the subject at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Open to OR and speculation. --Marco (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—there is already far too much WP bandwidth spent on this (minor) issue. Like Tom Reedy I am suspicious that this is an attempt to step around the ARBCOM decisions. I have questions about all sorts of things, but those questions are not defining any more than asking questions about Shakespeare are for those in this category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is already listified at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and it doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing we should categorize by. It seems quite "centric" to one particular topic, and not particularly defining for those included. If it was ever proved that someone other than Shakespeare wrote what Shakespeare wrote, then that fact would be defining for that person, but simply because someone has proposed that a person might have done so? This is not the reason the candidates are notable in the first place, after all. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in a list with, "places the Ark of the Covenant is buried, etc." Speculation and not factual. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There has been a great deal of ACADEMIC speculation as to who might have written Shakespeare's plays. It is a subject on which much ink has been spilt, with several people putting forward candidates. The criterion for inclusion should however be that the article categorised does in fact discuss at length the possibility that the subject wrote the plays. This will mean that it should nbot be able to pick up WP:OR. Shakespeare is such a significant English author that the subject is notable. I would very much dount that we will ever get much in the way of sibling categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, a lot of them are included on the list of possible authors provided by the Shakespearean Authorship Trust. (Much) more has been written about the possibility of some versus the others. I'm still not convinced it's defining for all the individuals. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Open to OR and speculation. --Marco (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—again this appears (along with the long list of similar categories given by Tom Reedy above) to be an attempt to get around the ARBCOM decisions. The List is adequate for this purpose and the category adds nothing for navigation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2013 (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 this is basically a performance by performer category. Except it is worse, since unlike Michale Jackson, in general there are thousands of any given weapon, so it can be used simultaneously in every war on earth, and since new ones can be made, it can be used indefinately as well. The wars a weapon appears in is not a characteristic of the weapon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to whatever article contains the equipments lists for the order of battle. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LIstify -- AS with Falklands aircraft, this is a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2013 (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 per the outcome of this CfD. "Weapons by war" is very much like "performances by performance" and is non-defining; either it's a small war that's a footnote in the careers of most types, or it's a major war and thus indiscriminate. The BushrangerOne ping only 02:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if these were articles on specific individual planes that were involved in the war, it might work. However as far as I can tell they are articles on types of warfare. I say this because a category like Category:American Civil War ships just might work, because the ships would be specific ships, not lines of ships. Even then it would probably be a tossup, but here it is a clear delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to whatever article contains the equipment lists for the order of battle. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was disappointed not to find 'rock'. There are some occasions where this is notable - the introduction of a new weapon, but this is not this category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a list then delete -- This is in the nature of a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really defining to the individual aircraft, these aircraft will have served in many wars and campaigns and if the trend is to add more "weapons by war" is carried on we have the unwanted potential to add loads of usage categories for each war or individual campaigns. MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete the category but consider a list.--Petebutt (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone voted "Delete". Steam5 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2013 (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 all. I see no objections to creating the list but from the outcome of this don't see it as necessary (Category:Carl Sandburg eponyms is currently empty, so deleting it won't get in the way of future list making). There's no problem with the navbox or the works by category. delldot∇. 05:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The first: we don't categorize things for being named after a particular person per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The contents would be good for creating a list, however. The second: we generally don't categorize people by person per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED. The third: we don't create subcategories for "miscellaneous" or "remainders" about a particular topic per WP:OC#MISC (in any case, it will be empty if the first two are deleted). Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The categories go against the general way in which we categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's comment. I was trying to make the recently created Carl Sandburg navbox template into something useful. The original was just a stub, with two rows, one for "works", one for "other things". I've seen two kinds of navbox templates, and I was imitating the kind that creates categories for each row. Since works are rather common for navbox templates, I split the template into two, "Works" and "Miscellanea". I have no qualms about the second one being speedily deleted, since the arguments against it seemed rather obvious to me as I was entering it. However, I want to defend the Works template. Sandburg was quite prolific, and created works of many different kinds, and I found myself creating 8 rows, so 8 categories, some empty, the rest stubs. The existing Sandburg entries are few and rather weak, and the existing lists of his works are poorly organized (Poetry and Sundry). So while here, tell me if I'm being reasonable about the Sandburg Works template and associated categories, so I can try cleaning things up a bit. Choor monster (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WE have three categories containing one article, besides the main article. This is not enough for a category. We do not have miscallanea categories. If they cannot be dealt with otherwise they should be in a parent category. "foo-related" categories are considered too vague in scope to be allowed. However, a navbox will do the job better than a mass of categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (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:Rename. This contains articles on slang languages of Spain, as opposed to Category:Spanish slang which contains slang words and phrases.
Hispanic doesn't study a language, it studies a people. ;) Anyways, there is a difference between the Spanish in Spain and the Spanish in the Americas. Keep. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot∇. 00:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I support the suggestions to merge to Category:Spanish variants rather than Category:Spanish language as I suggested in my original alternative. If these two languages are also to be categorised in Category:Spanish slang then they should probably have a sort key of * so that they are not mixed in with the slang expressions. – FayenaticLondon 20:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem is that Spanish (European), slang is very different and distinctive from Spanish in the Americas. So this really needs to be a distinct category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Spanish variants only. The other suggested targets is for articles on words not dialects, which is what the two categorised artticles seem to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Spanish variants. The articles are both on specific regional/group jargons found in Spain, so they are Spanish per both a nationality and a language use of the term. Thus many of the comments made above make no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Slang is surely its own plural. --Marco (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2013 (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.
