Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 29 August 31 >

August 30[edit]

Category:Immigration to Malta[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Immigration to Malta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category frogger3140 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (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.

Eclipse Comics and Antarctic Press[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: restore at will. Recommend linking to this in the talk page to head off a deletion of recreated material. Kbdank71 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of Category:Antarctic Press and Category:Eclipse Comics, which were deleted, as part of the category structure developing at WP:COMICS.
This is a technical nomination. I closed the discussions below since the discussions had already been closed as a delete so relisting to reach consensus is not appropriate. A decision was correctly made based on the facts in the discussion. However in continuing discussions, the actual closing admin now believes that these should be kept. Since recreating them would lead to a speedy delete as a recreation, and deletion review would probably support the close since it was correct, the question is what to do? My opinion is that we should simply discuss this here and if there is a consensus to allow these categories, then this discussion would serve to prevent a speedy deletion. If the category is recreated then a pointer to this discussion should be left on the talk page and the creation comment should also note this discussion. Yes, this is an odd approach, but this nomination basically explains the history and will allow anyone to better understand what actually occurred and comment based on the additional information. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as part of the category structure we're developing at WP:COMICS. This fits into a Publisher by country structure, and allows comics by Eclipse to be found through that category branch. This category should not be thought of as small; all the articles within the sub-cats are within this category. Hiding T 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hiding. This is part of a larger category scheme, and as such, in this case, WP:OC#SMALL doesn't apply. - jc37 21:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - creating a scheme of comics publishers by company doesn't require that each comics publisher has an independent subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two single member cats, or create a whole other (semi-duplicative) structure? Which do I think better enables navigation? Well when looking at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth, the answer would seem obvious, at least to me. Keep the small cats as they are part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". - jc37 23:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there are already two duplicative category structures. Titles by country duplicates the proposed use of Companies by country and Titles by country is the better place to categorize titles. If all that's ever going to exist for a publisher is the publisher's article and the titles subcat then it's clear-cut overcategorization to maintain the publishers subcat solely to house the titles. Otto4711 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're starting to convince me. And when I note that Category:American comics titles has publishers as subcats, it makes me wonder a bit about the comics by country tree itself. - jc37 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not talking about 100+ categories. We're talking about two. And if this is categorization for the sake of categorization then so is the albums by artist structure to which your argument also applies. The consensus established that we categorise so should be respected here. Otherwise we should delete the titles by publisher tree and instate the publisher categories, because who is to say that tree is of more weight than this one. A category of Eclipse Comics will allow us to examine the categorising of creators and the like as we establish the structure. The listing of these categories was premature, the closing of the relisted debates is out of process and all the facts have not been considered. We are not a bureaucracy. Sometimes we should let the topic experts work out the best way forwards, or at least invite them for input. Hiding T 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Comic book publishing companies of the United States currently contains 40 subcats which themselves have a single subcat. While I did not check every one of the single-subcat subcats, I am willing to bet that most if not all of them are Foo Comics titles. I'm also willing to bet that there similarly-situated categories amongst the remaining country categories and that they would add up at least to 100. Arguing to recreate the categories on the grounds that creators would go in them is a non-starter, as categorizing creative professionals by the companies for which they worked is also overcategorization and categories like Category:Eclipse Comics pencillers would be deleted. Comparison of this tree to the albums by artist tree, also known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is singularly unpersuasive. I would also note that the albums by artist tree is much more closely parallel to the titles by company tree than the publishers by nationality tree and that the existence of an albums by artist category does not mandate a category for the artist. There are many such categories, more than there ought to be IMHO, but that is a discussion for another day. Otto4711 (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have established the overwhelming precedent to categorise in this manner. What you are prepared to bet has no interest to me or any relevance to this debate, and your argument is reductive to IDONTLIKEIT so it doesn't matter if OTHERSTUFF exists because ILIKEIT. We can throw silly capital letter acronyms at each other all day and get nowhere. Some people would like this category kept, and some would like it deleted. That should mean it is kept. I'm not going to get anywhere trying to convince you, because your mind is made up. But what I find sucks is the disagreeable nature of all of this. If you wanted them all deleted, why simply nominate these two? That seems unfair, and I think in all fairness the categories should be restored and the whole tree discussed ion one go rather than a piecemeal chop here and there. That would be the right and proper way to go about it given the assertions made to me in other debates. As to what you think is over-categorisation, and what you think I am going to do, I like the way you assume the worst rather than the best. We used to have a principle we assumed the good faith, but have we thrown that out with the bathwater? Hiding T 14:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) Um, what? I've established the precedent of creating tons of single-entry categories for no reason? When pray tell did I accomplish this feat? That you believe my argument reduces to "I don't like it" says more about you than it does my argument, but I am pleased that you've acknowledged your own argument is bollocks. As for why those two categories were nominated and not others, it's because those were the two I happened to find. There is no requirement that an entire group of similar categories must be nominated as a unit and this latest suggestion that the categories be restored so they can all be nominated together is nothing but wiki-lawyering. I'm sorry if someone is making some sort of accusations about you elsewhere but your anger about it is irrelevant to this discussion. And finally, I have not suggested that you personally will or will not do anything. What I said is that your argument in favor of these categories because of the possibility of placing creative professionals within them was invalid because per extensively thrashed-out precedent it would be overcategorization. I did not suggest you had any plans to create such categories. For your complaining about good faith you might want to start from that assumption your own self. Otto4711 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You established the precedent by pointing out that's how we already categorise. I haven't pointed out my own argument is bollocks, I'm pointing out yours is. It amounts to "I don't like categories which have one article and one sub-category in them, regardless of their utility to a category structure other Wikipedians support." Nobody is making any accusations about me elsewhere. I don't get where you get that from. I will point you to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_1#Category:Fictional_characters_by_origin and ask why, if you insist that a whole structure be discussed there, you don't maintain the same standard here. If it is wiki-lawyering here, it's bollocks there too. You are right that this discussion is the result of wiki-lawering, I'd have much rather gone to DRV but you can take that up with Jc and Vegaswikian. And you did make accusations and false assumptions by asserting that the possibility of placing creative professionals within them was invalid, since it isn't, it's just more of your bollocks. There's precedent that we categorise creators by company, and there's precedent that we place people highly associated with an organisation within the category structure of that organisation. How else do you explain Presidents of the United States. That you cannot imagine a possibility that such categories have potential means nothing to me; I do not limit myself to your imagination. But like I say, you have absolutely no intention of changing your mind and I have no intention of changing mine. I would rather let the discussion lie than be accused of talking bollocks. That was uncalled for and beneath the Wikipedian spirit. Hiding T 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's how we already categorize in some instances. Some category structures with perpetually small categories work. Others don't. This one doesn't, and its intended, expanded purpose is duplicated by the Category:Comics titles by company and Category:Comics titles by country structures.
  • There is incredibly strong consensus and precedent that we do not categorize creative professionals by the organizations for which they work, as evidenced by the deletions of categories for people by television network, people by television series, performers by performance, performers by venue, actors by television network, films by actor, guest stars, sports by television network (which were being used to categorize sportscasters by network), authors and writers by series and so on. In light of such overwhelming consensus and precedent, comics creators by publisher categories simply would not survive. Again, I never said that you had any intention of creating such categories. I was merely responding to your argument that the deleted categories would be useful for categorizing comics creators.
  • I did not "insist" that the entire fictional characters by origin be considered together. I said that deleting the parent categories would have a deliterious effect on the subcats and offered to withdraw the nomination in favor of a mass nom if someone wanted to make it. Other editors then expanded the nomination to encompass the subcat.
  • I misread your line "assertions to me" as "assertions about me," which is where I got the accusations thing from.
  • "Bollocks" is beneath the Wikipedia spirit? Bollocks! Otto4711 (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One day people will understand the concept of consensus and that it can change, and that local consensus in one part of Wikipedia means nothing to a local consensus in another part of Wikipedia. It's your opinion it doesn't work. I disagree. So do others. Why are we still discussing this.
  • Yet again, you don't grasp my point. You're limited by your own opinion of what we do and don't do. At no point have I ever suggested creating categories of creator by company. You want to talk bollocks, feel free, but don't expect me to dignify it with a response. You want to accuse me of talking bollocks, make very sure you read what I write very closely and understand it first.
  • I don't dispute that, and I retract the insinuation that you insisted. I just regret you didn't do the same here, since the general feeling is that deleting parent categories in this instance has had a deleterious effect.
  • Fair enough.
  • Actually, yes, it is. There's no need to be a dick. Hiding T 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At no point have I ever suggested creating categories of creator by company. Except when you said above "A category of Eclipse Comics will allow us to examine the categorising of creators and the like as we establish the structure." you mean? (emphasis added) When you're going to claim you never did something, it's usually best not to claim it in the same discussion in which you did it. Otto4711 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good for you. Not of interest to me, since I haven't expressed an interest in them. Oh, and you do subscribe to the idea that consensus can change, yes? So what difference does it make if they have already been deleted? Hiding T 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A category of Eclipse Comics will allow us to examine the categorising of creators and the like as we establish the structure." (emphasis added) And while yes, consensus certainly can change, the uniform deletion of every such category brought to CFD indicates that consensus on this issue has not changed in the slightest. Otto4711 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for quoting my words. Now tell me where in that sentence I state I will be creating sub-categories, which you seem to continue to insist is my plan. Since I can't find where I said it in your quotation, I think you'll agree I never said it and perhaps you'd care to retract your mistaken inference. Oh, and if we are arguing the toss about precedence, then these should be restored per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Category:Tokyopop_titles. Hiding T 10:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me where in this entire discussion I said that you were planning to create subcategories. You said what I quoted, which clearly expresses an interest in discussing the creation of sub-cats, and then denied ever expressing interest. When your falsehood was exposed, you simply changed the claim. Sadly, you've been caught out again. And it's "precedent," not "precedence." Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christ if you want to start swapping tipo and grammar corrections we'll be here all day. And if you want to carry on accusing me of being a liar, go do it somewhere else, eh? I was very specific in what I said because I knew exactly what I meant. I meant placing articles like Richard Branson in Category:Virgin Group. Nowhere does that entail sub-categories. Unless you have telepathic abilities, rather than simply purporting them, I think it might be better if you accept I know what was in my mind, yeah? Do you want to retract your baseless accusations or shall we just call it a day? Hiding T 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought this was done at DRV? 70.55.85.143 (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Drv concerns closures. It's not for a "redo" of an XfD. In this case, the editors who had concerns followed the "rules" at DRV and discussed it with the closer first. The closer (me) then reverted the close based on additional information. I relisted for further discussion, but Vegaswikian felt that a new nom would be more appropriate. Since I think either process is fine, I'm deferring to his judgement in this. - jc37 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break[edit]
  • Comments — mostly based on some of the back and forth above:
    1. For the record, my support for the original CfDs for these two was based on looking at what was in just those categories at the time and the OC section Otto was pointing to. Under those criteria, the two do seem pointless. But that didn't take into account:
      • Any overlaying structure that would expect the categories to be there; or
      • Any additional categories that should be moved to, or created under them.
    2. There is a sound argument that an overlaying category structure would expect the two to exist, as container cats if nothing else.
    3. There are also, existing an potential, other categories that would sub under them. Yes, that includes the "titles" cats as well as "image" cats (there is one for Eclipse and potentially one for Antarctic) and "franchise" cats (possibles).
    4. In order to "make the deletion work" there seems to be the thought that it's OK to misapply categories. That is it's OK to add an article that isn't about a publication to the "titles" cat because the parent cat containing both would be too small. That seems wrong on a lot of levels.
    5. There seems to be a little bit of abuse of the concept of "overcatting". As stand alone cats, yes, both are small and lack the potential for growth. But as part of an overall, they do function as an intermediary layer. (I know, that's a bit repetitive.) Also, the cats do not lend themselves to generation category clutter on the articles. This is the rationale I'm familiar with seeing OC used with — adding dozens of categories to a article, making it near impossible to meaningfully use the cat section.
    6. Creator/Persons by employer/project categories... This is something that has had multiple runs through CfD with a pretty solid consensus. The nutshell is that doing this generally leads to clutter since writers and artists do float from project to project and employer to employer. That doesn't mean there isn't room for exceptional cases, but those would be putting the article under the "publisher" not creating a "<Publisher> people" cat.
    7. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — I can understand why this piece of Wiki-wisdom exists and is used, it's useful when examples that are counter to policy, guideline, or consensus are cited, but 9 times out of 10 its as a "Well, those will need to be, or should be, fixed as well but we're starting here." However, there are cases where it is eminently fair for someone to pipe up and say "Consensus, guideline, or policy allows that. How is that different from this?" Raising other cat trees that follow a similar format, and which include holding cats with minimal population, is valid. At the very least it broaches the question of whether the justification of that tree also justifies this one, or if that tree needs a CfD pruning.
    8. Consistency — Most of the subs under Category:Comic book publishing companies of the United States parallel the Eclipse and Antarctic Press cats — few articles and few cats (3 or less of each). I would have expected one of two things, either an initial mass nom of all the subs that fit the same criteria or a mass nom of the remaining subs after the "test noms" closed. Neither was done.
On the whole it looks like we've hit a point where we aren't just dealing with these two articles. We're dealing with the bulk of 79 categories and the category structure they exist in.
From that stand point, I cannot say I still support the deletion of these two. Yes, we've got an overlaying structure and multiple categories functioning in it. These two should be restored given the current content there. - J Greb (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reply to only a couple of points: as I've already mentioned, I nominated these two categories in isolation because they were the two I ran across while working on an article. I didn't go seeking them out in some attempt to surreptitiously dismantle the structure a piece at a time. I hope I've been around here long enough as a good CFD citizen that I may be taken at my word on that.
  • The idea that it's somehow wrong to put Eclipse Comics in Category:Eclipse Comics titles flabbergasts me. Not to get all WP:WAX, but take a look at the award winners categories. Every one I've ever looked at includes the article for the award. There is more than a whiff in your post that my suggesting inclusion of the company article in the titles category was in furtherance of the previously noted (and non-existent) nefarious dismantling plot.
  • I'm sorry if you read into this that I think you're trying to do something under handed or sinister. That wasn't my intent. One thing I was binging up, and this may be where the miscommunication crept in, is that you are very consistent, and relatively through in working with categories. This isn't a "bad" thing, it's just how I've found your work here — you work towards a consensus on a few related cats - and it isn't just ones you nom so it isn't just to "delete", but also to "rename" or "keep". If a consensus is reached, I've seen you staunchly argue for it to be applied as precedent, again be it "keep", "delete", or naming convention. And that also includes dragging in other cats that fit the particular criteria.
    In this case, the lack of follow up led to my second error - the first being not to really look at the parent and sibling cats - that were isolated instances. They aren't, so either the deletion was an error, or there are more sibling cats that need to be reviewed and deleted.
  • WAXing on and WAXing off... Actually to my mind publishing companies fall more in line with things like Cadillac or Pontiac. Cases where the brand sits in a self named cat rather in the cat for what is produced under the brand.
    Now, we've both put forward examples of categories going both way, and Hiding pointed to a third general tree. We're at the point of asking how this tree shapes up and how should we look at those three precedents. And before WAXing again, remember that precedent is used here, and the best example is the "Performer by performance" cats. Those are now almost automatically downed based solely on precedent. That's the only argument given, no re-hashing of the old debate. It's just "Consensus by numerous precedent is that we don't do this." - J Greb (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore following Hiding, jc37 and J Greb - this is a link in a broader categorisation structure. There is also an argument that it makes sense to have categories like the Eclipse Comics to bring together the titles and superheroes (this last one actually needs a "Eclipse Comics characters" to bring it back under comics characters by publisher. Also the removal of these categories has led to some odd and inaccurate classification like this [1] (which is not a title but removing the category left it in limbo and an Eclipse Comics teams category wouldn't be worth creating). So they not only form a link in the classificatory process but also bring together connected articles in coherent manner as well as act as a "catch-all" for articles that should be brought into the structure but have no child category to slot into. Also could I note that there is a section of the Comics Project noticeboard where people can be alerted to discussion of category changes and it would be a courtesy post there to draw the attention of editors with an interest in the general area. (Emperor (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Huh. I've tried to read all of this, and it all just seems like a minor, pointless side-debate with no real purpose, point or merit. Does it matter if there's a Category for Eclipse Comics? No. Does it complicate things if there isn't one? Yes. Does it serve a purpose? Yes. So... what am I missing? Why was it deleted (or was it)? Cat Yronwode goes in Category: Eclipse Comics. Miracleman goes in Category: Eclipse Comics titles (why does "Eclipse Comics superheroes" exist, by the way..?). Why is that cause to make everything complicated? ntnon (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted because the discussion had a nomination and a supporting vote. There were no objections presented until after the discussion was closed and the category delete. This was a valid close. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reasons stated at your talk page by both myself and Jc, I think it is fair to say that the validity of the close is a matter of debate and not a definitive article. Hiding T 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess, but I think that Vegaswikian is suggesting that the closure, at the time of closing, based upon the information presented at that time, was a valid close. - jc37 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should have said "that" then. I apologise once again. Hiding T 11:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that there was a valid relisting; said closure of is disputed. Hiding T 11:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. The form used to relist was the one used when a discussion could not be closed since consensus was lacking. That was clearly not the case. The relisting failed to mention that this had already been closed and deleted. Very important factors to note. It also failed to note exactly why a deleted category was being relisted. Bottom line, dealing with this closure could have been done differently. I suspect that we all have learned from this and handle something link this differently. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly something I can agree on. I think you have also pointed out elsewhere that this is a grey area, which I would also agree with. But you're right; we are where we are, and no amount of belly-aching on my part will change that. For the ill-feeling I've generated I apologise. Hiding T 23:44, 4 September 2008 (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:Antarctic Press[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. Closed by jc37 at first discussion. Seems to be two people processing around the same time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Antarctic Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: small category with little to no chance of expansion. The contents are appropriately assigned to parent cats. Otto4711 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not think we usually categorise books by publisher, which is what this category is doing. My first reaction was that this was going to be about the Press in Antartica, which would certainly be a small category, but not quite a non-existent one; I think I have read of a title something like the South Polar News, published by a polar expedition. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment first - Calling this "Overcategorization" in general seems to be overkill... maybe WP:OC#SMALL to hit the exact reason would have been better. The being said, the sub cat and the latter two articles should be fine without this cat. That just means the eponymous article will need to be upmerged. Then Delete - J Greb (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've placed the lead article in the appropriate parent(s). Otto4711 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 21:21, 30 August 2008 (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:Eclipse Comics[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. Closed by jc37 at first discussion. Seems to be two people processing around the same time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eclipse Comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no likelihood of expansion. The article and subcat are appropriately parented. Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, the cat should be fine, but the article will need to be upmerged to the parents. - J Greb (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've placed the lead article in the appropriate parent(s). Otto4711 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 21:21, 30 August 2008 (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:Number-one singles in Brazil[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: relisted on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_5#Category:Number-one_singles_in_Brazil. Kbdank71 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Number-one singles in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil, this chart was found to be not-notable / questionable / not-legit and was deleted. Therefore there does not seem to be any basis or source for this category. References to Brazil Hot 100/Brazil Singles Chart are being removed from song/album/discography articles, so having this category makes no sense. - eo (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2008 (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:Pope Pius IX[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. Kbdank71 13:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pope Pius IX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete: Small without potential for growth. Suggest move article and image to parent category. Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge [see below] per nom to Category:Popes (of which this is the only eponymous subcat). Occuli (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article is already in the correct categories with the appropriate sorting. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the additional contents, there is no reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there are at least 8 other eponymous Pope cats, 6 in Category:Italian popes, plus 1 each in the Polish & German cats (guess who). Some of these include too many articles, but are perfectly valid cats imo. Keep or Delete for now (now it's filled), as it has been like this for nearly a month, but with no prejudice to recreation, as the category could certainly be filled usefully; nominator is clearly wrong on the potential, as Pio NoNo was a long-serving & important Pope. He is now the most recent Pope not to have a category, & will doubtless be given one at some point. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod is, as usual, both entirely correct and effortlessly informative. I have now moved the category to its correct parent Category:Italian popes where it at least has eponymous siblings. I have no objection per se to eponymous categories for popes and would be happy to see this one flourish. Occuli (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh thanks, but I knew I had seen another one somewhere. I don't blame you for missing them - really all these should be subs of the main Popes cat. Thanks too to Charlotte for filling. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I have added several obviously related articles to this category. Others remain, so I'd guess somebody didn't look very hard before CFD'ing. — CharlotteWebb 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suprisingly well-populated category for a Pope more prominent for his defeat. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (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:Royal Peace Award[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 as G12 by Athaenara (non-admin closure). --AmaltheaTalk 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Royal Peace Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a category page, but an article/advertisement. StaticGull  Talk  15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and a copyright violation of [2], like all the other pages he and his other accounts have created today. Tagged as G12 for speedy deletion. --AmaltheaTalk 15:57, 30 August 2008 (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.

Micronations 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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Micronations in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains 6 articles. Unlikely to ever contain more.

Category:Micronations in Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 1 article. Unlikely to ever contain more.

Category:Micronations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 1 article. Unlikely to ever contain more.

Category:Micronations in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 4 articles. Future possibility of 1 or 2 others.

Category:Micronations in Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 1 article. Future possibility of 1 other.

Category:Micronations in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains 4 articles. Future likelihood of 1-2 others.

Category:Micronations in Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 1 article. Unlikely to ever conain more.

Category:Micronations in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains 2 articles, one of which is mis-categorised. Future possibility of 1 other.

Category:Micronations in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains 4 articles, of which 1 is mis-categorised. Others unlikely.

Category:Micronations in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 1 article. Unlikely to ever contain more.

Category:Micronations in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 1 article. Future likelihood of 1 other.

Category:Micronations in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains 2 articles. Unlikely to ever contain more.

Category:Micronations in Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains only 1 article. Unlikely to ever contain more.

Category:Micronations in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category content is identical to England / Scotland categories. Redundant.

Category:Micronations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Category contains 8 articles. Future possibility of 1-3 others.
  • Delete. All of the above single country-based categories were unilaterally introduced without rationale, discussion, consensus or reference to the relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject_Micronations. Fully 7 out of 15 categories above contain only 1 article, and almost all of those are extremely unlikely to ever contain more than that. There are only 63 articles about or related to micronations in Wikipedia, so the introduction of multiple 1-article mini-categories per the above introduces a confusing, unneccesary and totally preposterous level of granularity to this particular subset of WP articles. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per precedent on finite cats, eg. Category:English popes. Please also read WP:OWN. Please note that User:Gene Poole went round manually emptying categories (and in the process blanket reverting all other minor edits, eg other cats and links). They have been warned about this behaviour on their Talk page. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment (before I leave) - I'm inclined to think that these sub-cats are actually quite useful, especially to the casual reader who in most cases has no idea where any of these entities are, going by their names alone. (Plus the sub-cats also tie them into the related country categories.) Perhaps the "solution" to this dispute is to have them all in both the sub-cats and the parent category. Cgingold (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Category:Micronations by country seems a perfectly coherent scheme, and I have been greatly amused by the UK ones (nicely gathered together). Occuli (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 70 micronation articles sorted alphabetically on one page should be easy to navigate. Divide 70 by the 15 subcategories and we get an approximate average of 4 to 5 articles per subcategory. In other words - these subcategories are very small, unnecessary and a waste of time. They will not increase in size at a fast rate seeing as micronations take some time to create, and wealready have a perfectly good category in use. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be "easy to navigate" if you're already familiar with their names, etc., and don't happen to care where they are -- but I think most readers are going to be more interested in particular parts of the world, and will therefore want to have some idea where they're located. As for the smallish sub-cats, that is entirely commonplace for "by country" category schemes -- nothing unusual there. Cgingold (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my most recent comment below, it is a continuation of this discussion. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but it is impossible to order micronations by country, because some, like Vikesland, hold land in several countries and change over time, sometimes constantly. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How many of them are there that would present that kind of issue? Cgingold (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few, Westarctica, Atlantium, Vikesland, Caux - just to name a few examples. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category is ridiculous. The "micronations" in the U.S. includes jokes, and unsuccessful secessionist groups. How can these be considered micronations? ClovisPt (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this should be deleted but not for the same reason - they are micronations because they are unrecognised state-like entities. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If User:ClovisPT wants to nominate any "joke" articles on supposed "micronations" for deletion/redirection, then he/she is likely to have my wholehearted support! The more I look into it the more obvious it becomes that certain "micronations" campaigners are using (abusing) Wikipedia to make these cranks' fantasies more concrete than they are in real life. Wikipedians beware! Please do not allow the lunatics to run the asylum: ie. Wikipedia must take a distanced and neutral look at this topic. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were quite a few logical fallacies in that argument - let's start with the ad hominems: "micronation campaigners abusing Wikipedia", "cranks", "fantasies", "lunatics". And the ad populum "joke". Finally we can see by the way that you have written "supposed micronations" that you do not know the definition of the word "micronation". ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - organisation scheme seems reasonable, and I'd be fascinated to know where the nominator got his numbers. I can think of at least two other New Zealand micronations which do not have articles, without even googling to see if there are more, so the claims of "future likelihood of one other" seem unlikely. And if that one's wrong, how accurate are the others? Are we seriously to assume that there are unlikely ever to be other micronations in Australia or Austria? I think not. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Unlike Category:English Popes, it is very easy to foresee these categories expanding in the future. It is fairly obvious to me why this new categorisation scheme has been so vociferously opposed by certain Users: they do not want it made explicit that all of these entities are in actual fact parts of sovereign states. ie. that all these "micronations" are just an invention. They want to use Wikipedia to perpetuate the myths. Well, that is not what Wikipedia is for. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More logical fallacies! The strawman argument that we "don't want to make explicit that all of these entities are in actual fact parts of sovereign states and are just inventions" - which again shows that you do not know the definition of the word "micronation". Can you please explain why you think the rate of micronation creation is high enough to support the creation of the subcategories? And also how we are "campaigners perpetuating myths"? ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new categorisation scheme that has become the cause of such disruption to WP since its recent concoction, was foisted upon us by an individual who appears to be labouring under the illusion that the use of threats, attempted intimidation, personal abuse, hysteria, and ranting are acceptable behaviours when engaging with other editors. The bottom line here is that a new categorisation system was introduced without considered - or indeed any discernable rationale, discussion or consensus - apparently because the person who dreamt it up thinks that it's an appropriate response to some imagined grand conspiracy to pervert the content of WP, perpetrated by an imagined evil cabal whose imagined motivations he has somehow uniquely, magically ascertained. There are indeed "lunatics", "cranks" and "fantasists" in residence here - and it's pretty damned clear just who they really are. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor is entirely free to create and populate categories without seeeking any consensus. There is cfd for those who object, and here we are. 'XXX by country' is hardly controversial. Micronations which don't fit in a country category can be put in several or left at the top level and not subcatted - this is quite common. Occuli (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between being bold, and being disingenuos. The creator of the new cats did not simply add them to the relevant articles - they also simultaneously deleted the primary category link - deliberately and systematically - from each and every one of those same articles. In so doing the one means of seeing the full list of WP articles on the subject of micronations, on one page, in one mouseclick, was supplanted by a situation where one bunch of articles was categorised by country, and another bunch which were still listed under the primary category - with nothing linking the two. So, while no doubt well-intentioned, the new system was poorly thought through, and hamfistedly implemented - issues which might never have arisen had some slight attempt been made to finesse their ideas with others before performing brain surgery with a hatchet.--Gene_poole (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have missed my suggestion above that "the solution to this dispute is to have them all in both the sub-cats and the parent category." That should satisfy both sides in this dispute. Cgingold (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss anything. I agree that your solution is sensible, and actually implemented it personally over 16 hours ago - which is when I uncovered just how much of a cock-up the implementation of the new categories had been. The only reason that happened is that 1 person chose not to share his idea with anyone else before rolling it out. It's an excellent object lesson in why WP consensus is a good idea. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great -- glad to hear this! Cgingold (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However land, or a country, is not the only way for a micronation to exist. Micronations are state-like - so far we have only had countries exist on land (or with a history of exisitng on land, as with the SMOM - yet that is a unique exception), yet micronations don't just exist on land. They exist in space, at sea, on structures, on the internet, across the globe, in the creator's imagination and even in a caravan - in fact the vast majority of micronations are nothing more than simulations. With recognised states, it makes sense to group them into continents or regions because that is all they exist on, but doing the same for micronations is inconsistent, confusing and incorrect. There is only one thing that micronations all have - and that is the definition of micronation (the reason for the micronation category), from there it can be anything the creator wants it to be. I agree with Gene Poole, the use of intimidation to perpetuate a conspiracy theory is completely inappropriate and is the exact opposite of consensus - I have yet to see a properly described argument for the new subcategories from Mais oui!, but so far all I have seen are logical fallacies, particularly ad hominems. ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I have serious doubts about the whole concept of micronations. Some are "virtual" or imaginary. Others are the creation of oddball people, who claim to be able to opt out of their own country, by a unilateral declaration of independence. I have grave doubts as to whether any are truly notable. However that requires an AFD discussion, not a CFD: we cannot get rid of the categories unless we get rid of the articles. Possibly they are worth having articles on as an example of the bizarre. If so, they need a category. However, I am not persuaded by the name micronation, which I would have expected to refer to ehtnic tribal peoples within recognised countries. How about Category:Purported sessionist states? However they are so few in number that categorisation by the country that they claim to have left is generally unsatisfactory. I would suggest categorisation by continent. The England and Scotland categories can certainly be upmerged to United Kingdom, but I would suggest that that, with the Finalnd category, etc. be upmerged to a single category for Europe, as suhould any subcategories of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The idea of continental subcategories would certainly resolve the problem of multiple unneccesary 1-article categories. Aside from that, your comments are extremely wide of the mark. The "concept of micronations" has been documented in literally hundreds of reliable published press, television, radio, travel and other reputable third party sources over a period of several decades, throughout the world. The term itself has a specific, widely accepted meaning which reflects those sources. The many dozens of editors who have contributed during the last half a decade to WPs repository of information on the subject have extensively and comprehensively cited those sources. The argument over notability is a furfy was comprehensively settled many years ago. It is even more settled now, under a steadily increasing weight of published sources. It is neither resting, nor pining for the fjords. It is a dead non-issue - as even the most cursory review of the relevant articles will quickly reveal to anyone who actually looks. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subcategorising by location is entirely reasonable in this case. I agree with Peterkingiron that "by continent" might be a better system, but I'm not strongly opposed to the one currently being implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sub-cats by country -- and to repeat my own suggestion above, "the solution to this dispute is to have them all in both the sub-cats and the parent category." That should satisfy both sides in this dispute. Cgingold (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Peterkingiron's idea of "by continent" is an improvement, but still not enough (though I strongly disagree with his description of micronations). Here is the problem: micronations exist on this planet, on other planets and throughout space, on the internet and in the imagination. In other words throughout the universe! The vast majority don't even exist on land, and I think this categorisation by land alone is very misleading. Why not have the micronation category, then have the 5 subcategories: Land (divided further into continents), Sea, Space, Virtual and Imagination? We can merge, divide and discuss these subcategories where necessary, but my point is this: With micronations, land alone is a very poor, misleading and vague way of sorting the location of micronations because it is only one way for micronations to exist. If you are going to divide the micronations category, don't take one portion and leave the rest, divide it fully. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the ones named after specific countries to "Micronations in Oceania", "Micronations in Europe" and "Micronations in North America". Should reduce the number of underpopulated categories. Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the four most populated (Australia, Canada, UK, US), delete the rest and upmerge. Alternatively, the suggestion by Dimadick above would work. Orderinchaos 06:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion re "Micronations" categories[edit]
  • Note: Could some Admin please make sure that this discussion is dealt with in a oner, and not all over the place? --Mais oui! (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an Admin, but I've left a note for Gene Poole asking him to bundle these into one section. Cgingold (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm advising him on how to set it up. Cgingold (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've finished my part -- they're all bundled into one section now. I left the slight variants for Gene Poole to merge as he likes into a single rationale paragraph. Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well, I tried. Mission accomplished. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2008 (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:Infusions[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. Kbdank71 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infusions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This category really serves no purpose whatsover, since pretty much every herbal remedy can be prepared as an infusion if one wishes to do so. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2008 (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:Military drugs[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. Kbdank71 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military drugs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - While I understand the intent of this category, I don't believe it actually makes very much sense as a Category, since all drugs are used interchangeably in the civilian and military domains. As far as I know, there are no exclusively military drugs. Even the lone article in the category is about a drug delivery system, not a drug per se (and is already included in Category:Military medicine). Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By this criteria, the category would include Methamphetamine, Benzedrine, Dextroamphetamine and any number of stimulants used in World War II. See: Meth in the Military. Most of them have had uses outside the military. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2008 (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:Non-article South Australia pages[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. Kbdank71 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Non-article South Australia pages to Category:NA-Class South Australia articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow WP1.0 category conventions, there are no pages categorised under the current name, and there are pages categorised under the proposed name. TRS-80 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2008 (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:Down syndrome people[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 both, no consensus on deleting the parents cat. Kbdank71 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Down syndrome people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Parents of Down syndrome people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:People with Down syndrome and Category:Parents of people with Down syndrome, respectively. This is consistent with both the parent cat, Category:People with intellectual impairment, and also the super-cat, Category:People with disabilities and most of its sub-cats. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per above, but I would seriously consider deleting "parents of" as a non-defining categorization-by-characteristic-of-family-member (following the same principles as "wives of younger sons of dukes"). Do we have parent categories (no pun intended) for other medical conditions? Initial research says "no" [3]. — CharlotteWebb 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Down syndrome people per nom. Delete Parents of Down syndrome people as overcategorization by non-notable characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep both per nom. Giving birth to a Down Syndrome person is a notable and defing characteristic. Look through the category and you will see the huge effect it has had on most of the parents lives. From the abortion issue to the adoption and caregiving issue. A few people in the category have killed their Down syndrome children, and a few people in the category have commited suicide over the birth of their Down syndrome baby. To some (Sarah Palin) it has been a major issue in a Vice-Presidential candidate. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brewcrewer on this issue -- this is definitely non-trivial. I would also suggest that there are probably a few other disablities/conditions that also deserve such categories -- certainly having a child with autism is a life-altering event. (Btw, Down syndrome is often more than mental retardation, it can also include deafness, heart problems, and other significant medical issues.) Cgingold (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Useful categories but could use the renaming. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2008 (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:Cobra Starship singles[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. Kbdank71 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Cobra Starship singles to Category:Cobra Starship songs

Per convention of Category:Songs subcats. In particular Category:Songs by artist. - jc37 04:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 04:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom. - Occuli (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (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:Pennsylvania Athletic Conference[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. Kbdank71 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania Athletic Conference to Category:Colonial States Athletic Conference
Nominator's rationale: Athletic conference name has changed from Pennsylvania Athletic Conference to Colonial States Athletic Conference. See [4]. Bashen (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:29, 30 August 2008 (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:Tense, aspect, Aktionsart[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. Kbdank71 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tense, aspect, Aktionsart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete and upmerge contents to parent cats. Besides being rather oddly named, I don't think this category has any real utility. It basically groups two sub-categories that can just as well stand by themselves -- and probably be located more easily without the intervening category layer. In addition, it seems too specialized to have any real potential for growth. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest rename to Category:Grammar of verbs. Alternatively upmerge. However I am not a linguist. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. This is a rather odd category and nothing in the discussion says that an upmerge is wrong or it would break anything. 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
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:Circumpolar species[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. Kbdank71 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Circumpolar species to Category:Wildlife of the Arctic
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a lot of overlap here. Suggest upmerge to parent as unsure which articles should go where. Ring species, as the category page says, is related, but is not the same thing. See also Category talk:Circumpolar species. Either that, or rename to Category:Polar species (or whatever the best name is) and make the Arctic one and Category:Wildlife of Antarctica (currently Category:Biota of Antarctica - what should the names be??) the two subcategories. Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean rename to Category:Polar species? I guess depopulation of the Arctic ones currently in the category could occur after that (putting them in the Arctic category as needed), and the Arctic and Antarctic subcats could be smoothly moved into place as subcats of the new category, as they are both examples of polar species. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, to Category:Wildlife of the Arctic, per the nomination. There were other issues you raised but no objections so the rename should be done. As to splitting up the contents, that can be done at anytime and should not require a discussion here. If Category:Polar species is the better choice then I would have no objection. If you are saying that would be the best choice and allow for the cleanup after the rename with the least amount of work, then say so by revising the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_30&oldid=1138389808"