Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

January 12[edit]

Utrecht[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming categories related to Utrecht (city) and Utrecht (province)

Nominator's rationale: As with Groningen below, these categories do not make clear whether they are about Utrecht (city) or Utrecht (province). For this reason, I propose renaming:

A ecis^Brievenbus 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support per nomination. Arnoutf (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but can you be sure that the categories relating to the city and the province are really distinct and that "people from" only realtes to the city? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As with Groningen below, the text on top of Category:People from Utrecht says: "This category encompasses all natives and long-term inhabitants of the city of Utrecht." Making sure that the content of the category corresponds to this is a maintenance issue that is beyond the scope of this CfR. But adding "(city)" to the category name would imo create a much clearer distinction between this category and its parent Category:People from Utrecht (province). A ecis^Brievenbus 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we already have a Category:People from Utrecht (province), which seems pretty fully populated, with a sub for Amsersfoot. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom & my comment above, Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Groningen[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming categories related to Groningen (city) and Groningen (province)

Nominator's rationale: The following categories are all about Groningen (city) or about Groningen (province). Which of the two is concerned doesn't always become clear. I suggest renaming the following categories to conform to the naming of the articles.

A ecis^Brievenbus 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although I would not mind seeing fewer overlapping categories; so some merger maybe an idea. Arnoutf (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but can you be sure that the categories relating to the city and the province are really distinct and that "people from" only realtes to the city? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The text on top of Category:People from Groningen says: "This category includes all people born or raised in the city of Groningen with a Wikipedia-page". Making sure that the content of the category corresponds to this is a maintenance issue that is beyond the scope of this CfR. But adding "(city)" to the category name would imo create a much clearer distinction between this category and its parent Category:People from Groningen (province). A ecis^Brievenbus 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom & my comment at last one, also true here. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) episodes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is misnamed/misapplied, amount of content (3 pages at present) is not enough to justify the need/appropriate of this cat; cat appears to have been deleted once before as well for similar reasons. MASEM 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a larger series, ie. Category:Television episodes by series. This category has never been deleted as the logs show.There was a category Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) which was deleted, but definitely not this one. Tim! (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these list articles are already categorized in the Category:Lists of television series episodes structure which is where they belong. Category:Television episodes by series is for subcats that hold individual episode articles. See this CFD for a parallel category which was deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You created this category, and your argument contradicts that made at this debate. So were you wrong then or are you wrong now? Want to recreate the Hell's Kitchen category? I'm not too bothered which of the categories exist Tim! (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unaware of the Lists of... category structure when I created the category. As I said here, that category structure more than suffices to categorize these articles without the unnecessary episodes category. Not really understanding why you feel the need for your confrontational attitude here... Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE springs immediately to mind, but I didn't imagine that you would actually admit that you were wrong. Tim! (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I've had to engage you I've tried to make an effort to engage you with respect, Tim, for the last several months. I don't claim that I've done a perfect job of it, so you needn't bother digging up examples that you feel illustrate the contrary, but I'm sorry that you're apparently holding on to things that happened a year or more ago when we initially had a combative relationship. If it makes you feel better for me to say I was wrong, then fine, I was wrong to create this category if the Lists of category structure already existed. As the creator of this category which was created in error, I renew my objection to it on the grounds already stated and continue to advocate for its deletion. I hope the rest of your day goes better than it's apparently been going. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no need for the category as Otto explained. TTN (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Homosexuality and religion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Homosexuality and religion to Category:LGBT issues and religion

Nominator's rationale: merge:Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex_and_sexual_identities, "homosexual" is not the preferred term. Also, the vast majority of Wikipedia categories (including Category:LGBT itself) use "LGBT", not "Homosexual(ity)". Also, there is no compelling reason to divide gay and lesbian religious topics from bi and trans religious topics. Alynna (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I would support this except that most of the articles use the word "homosexuality" in their titles, including the main article [[religion and homosexuality]. I don't like creating general naming policy at WP:CFD. I suggest trying to get a consensus to move the articles to names with "LGBT" instead of "homosexuality," and then coming back here. Generally, category names should match those of the articles they hold. If you do this, please also nominate Category:Homosexuality and Christianity, which has the same problems. LeSnail (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some religions, these matters are treated differently, whether that is enough to split categories upon is another matter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Using "LGBT" instead of "homosexual" will bring together more similar topics and thus be of more use to our users. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The use of initials (abbreviations) in article and category names is to be deplored, as their menaing is not apparent to the uninitiated. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point that could apply to users whose first language isn't English. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a category about a specific aspect of LGBT issues and reflects on a series of article that deal with the aspect. I don't think blaring the line between them and Queer theology ,for example, helps in locating the information. Dimadick (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Battles involving the Aztec Empire[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was keep, no consensus to delete. What to do with related cats/subcats not clearly established at this point, so no prejudice to any future nomination considering the related ones as a whole. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The 'Aztec Empire' didn't fight as a single unit. The Spanish conquest involved several entities (altepetl) within the empire fighting against another one. This can be treated more accurately using specific categories like Category:Battles involving Tenochtitlan, Category:Battles involving Tlaxcala, and so forth. Ptcamn (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while an argument could be made that the Aztec Empire is as much a "country" as the Mongol Empire or German pre-1870 or other places where power is or was dispersed and central control does not or did not extend throughout the area (present-day UAE, Iraq, Colombia and other countries may fail such rigorous tests, however), however given that we have the subcategories we don't really need this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?No sub-cats at present. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid. The one pointed out above and the ones at Category:Battles involving Nahuas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Rip their living hearts out, say I. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My rationale being that the term "Aztec Empire" can refer to its component entities. Example: theoretical category entitled "Battles involving the High Elves" would actually be referring to battles fought by different ethnicities of High Elf under the one collective umbrella (given as the High Elves as a whole didn't ever fight a battle together). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only 2 articles, & per Suriel "involving" is vague enough to remove nom's objections. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also merge into this all the tiny sub-categories of Category:Battles involving Nahuas like: Category:Battles involving Tenochtitlan, Category:Battles involving Tlaxcala. These cats wrote the book for small and unlikely to grow - 2 articles & 4 cats!! Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging as per above recommendation Also clarification on my point: I was referring to Tolkien's High Elves. I applaud Johnbod for understanding the gist of a rather random comparison! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Italian musical instruments[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Was apparently created to hold "piano", "violin" and "classical guitar" (which I removed because the first two are no more "Italian" than the automobile is "German", and the guitar is also known as the "Spanish guitar"). The only remaining item is the category "Ancient Roman musical instruments", which concept doesn't fit the modern concept of "Italian". RobertG ♬ talk 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator points out, there is a big difference between "Italian" and "Ancient Roman". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Originally held cello too, which I removed as not particularly Italian. I should have checked to see what else was in there. There aren't any specifically Italian instruments that I know of. LeSnail (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or delete the whole Musical instruments by nationality category. Piano was invented in italy?? So already we have an Italian instrument. Same thing Classical Guitar. It was invented in Italy?? Sp it's Italian. It aint an Italian Folk Music category, but an Italian Musical Instruments category. Which means instruments from ITALY.

PS. The one who nominated the category. Have you read the phrase: Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. written in the template??? So dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.182.44 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you would understand a little in guitars you would know that Spanish Guitar is a term to describe a TECHNIQUE and TUNING and NOT the instrument itself. Just like a Russian Guitar and a 7 string Guitar (thought here to many dont understand). You yourself said your an amature musician, while i'm a profesional musicologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.182.44 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you. Your opinions and your assertion that your credentials trump mine will be considered by the administrator who closes this discussion. I apologise if my nomination annoyed you. To be clear, I didn't empty the category while this CFD nomination was in place: I removed the category from the instruments first because in my opinion the categorisation is downright unhelpful, and then I nominated the category. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also against procedure, and clearly makes comment here very difficult. Can an admin please restore the category as it was so that it can be debated please? Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not require an admin to restore the category as it was. Someone tried, and it seems the categories were removed from the articles again by someone else. You can put them back yourself if you think it's important. --RobertG ♬ talk 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the person who did it should restore them, if no admin will. I'm fed up with these improper nominations. I now see you are an admin yourself. You really should check out procedures before coming into an area new to you. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; pointless exercise in nationalism, and one of the most unhelpful ways I can imagine to categorize major instruments. The piano is an "Italian musical instrument"? Come on. Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty pointless overcategorisation. Would only be useful for instruments that were only used in Italy, not for those that may have been invented there but have subsequently spread worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems that the intention of the categories was probably to capture something of Italy's history in musical instrument innovation. I suggest that that's really a good topic for an article; it could start as a list but would hopefully eventually cover other things. --Lquilter (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea; could be quite an interesting article. I suspect that Wikipedia is underdeveloped in this particular area. Antandrus (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Professional wrestling champions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns states "There is no ultimate source that declares which of the various wrestling promotions top championships have that status and views differ from promotion to promotion. The same happens with PWI. Hence this page is not supposed to represent the official view on which titles have world title status, it just represents PWI's point of view.". It is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to solely recognise one magazine's definition of what consitutes a "World Title". We don't even have any sourced information justifying why this magazine has the criteria it does.

In conclusion, the subject matter:

Is not appropriately sourced

Has no widespread credibility/recognition within the business (promotions recognise their own titles - we have references for this!)

Has no factual basis (these titles are not the only ones defended in different parts of the word)

If anyone wants to categorise wrestling world champions then they need to include (a) anyone who has ever held a belt named a 'World Title' or (b) nobody at all (WP:OR) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously strong, prejudicial delete Thank you! Anyone from WP:PW knows my stance on the matter. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get rid of this once and for all. Nenog (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first one, Delete the other two. PWI is considered the definitive source in wrestling. Including every title whose promotion calls it a world title would be a mess since there are dozens of promotions that call their main title a world title. TJ Spyke 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof that PWI is considered the "definitive source" in wrestling? Nenog (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - PWI's "criteria" are ignored by every company and performer in the business. They are meaningless and worthless. There is no official definition (and never will be) for what constitutes a wrestling "world champion. Hence me advocating total removal of all three categories. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak —Preceding comment was added at 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I intended to do this same nomination but got distracted. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have little knowledge or interest in the subject, but assume that their are a limited number of bodies awarding the accolade "World Champion", as in boxing where I think there are three rival bodies. Even if there are a dozen of them, include them all: I would have thought it made a worthwhile category, but (as I say) I know little of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is several wrestling promotions call their title a world title. The main issue with this for the past couple of years as been the ROH World Championship. According to World Heavyweight Championship, in order for a title to be a true world title it has to have the potential to be defended against any challenger anywhere in the world. In 4 1/2 years the ROH World Championship has been defended a total of 14 times in countries outside the US. ROH has also brought in other wrestlers from promotions across the world to challenge for the belt. On top of that, the current ROH World Champion is British, and the previous one is from Japan. However, since PWI does not recognize it as a world championship certain people say it is not a real world championship. The problem with PWI is they are a biased, third-party magazine. Is it surprising that when there is professional wrestling in the US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, England, etc. the only titles an American magazine has recognized as true world championships come from US promotions? One of the current ones they recognize they gave world title status to right after it was created, and the belt is barely taken out of one building in Orlando, Florida. So despite the fact the magazine is biased, and that most people in the wrestling industry couldn’t care less whether PWI recognizes a title as a world championship, certain editors on Wikipedia say that until PWI says it’s a world title, it isn’t. Nenog (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guesstimate there are approaching 20 different "world heavyweight titles" in existance at the moment. That isn't counting ones which have discontinued. All a promotion has to do is give the title that name, and given that different promotions rarely recognise each other (the exception being the National Wrestling Alliance territories) there is no definitive criteria for legitimacy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be a pretty close to full list. WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), and TNA World Heavyweight Championship are the three titles PWI recognizes. Other titles calling themselves world titles (of any actual note - there are probably a hundred backyard feds that call their belt a world title) are the aforementioned ROH World Championship, the PWG World Championship, the FIP World Heavyweight Championship, the CZW World Heavyweight Championship, the storied NWA World Heavyweight Championship, the 1PW World Heavyweight Championship, the AAA World Heavyweight Championship, the AWA Superstars World Heavyweight Championship, the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship in Japan, the IGF World Heavyweight Championship, as well as several defunct titles. There are also titles without the word "world" in their name that are doubtlessly worldly in stature, like the AJPW Triple Crown Championship and the GHC Heavyweight Championship. Now, I do think it's fair to say that there's an objective difference between the WWE Championship and, say, the FIP World Heavyweight Championship, but it's a difficult one to codify, especially as I would greatly dispute that the same difference exists between the TNA World Heavyweight Championship and the ROH World Championship or the GHC Heavyweight Championship. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment There is some discussion germane to this topic at Category talk:World Champion professional wrestlers Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Asustek V series[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge and delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Asustek V series to Category:Asuktek mobile phones

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Upmerge to parent. Subcategory has one article; parent has no articles and only this one subcategory. Snocrates 09:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Asustek mobile phones, which I figure was meant, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:NZMA presidents[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:NZMA presidents to Category:New Zealand Medical Association

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Only one article in each category; should be consolidated. Apparently an article on New Zealand Medical Association doesn't even exist. Snocrates 09:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge: Even if the presidency of the NZMA changes hands every single year, a list will serve the purpose. The category is small, with very limited possibilities for growth. --7Kim (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - President of an association is non-defining, so NZMA presidents should be deleted. Opposed to the Assn category, because it's an unnecessary eponymous category. --Lquilter (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lquilter, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non defining. Sting_au Talk 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ARC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ARC to Category:Advanced RISC Computing

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and main article Advanced RISC Computing. Snocrates 09:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for accuracy and consistency, and partial expansion of acronym. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - more descriptive and better match for main article. Sting_au Talk 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RISC is an abbreviation 70.55.89.222 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realised that, but when the same abbreviation is used in the names of articles, I think the general practice is to not expand them in the category names. Snocrates 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RISC is one of those acronyms that I think is more like LASER -- it's surpassed its acronym-ity. --Lquilter (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:BPO companies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename both as per nom. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BPO companies to Category:Business process outsourcing companies

Category:BPO companies of India to Category:Business process outsourcing companies of India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and main article Business process outsourcing. Snocrates 09:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.-choster (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ICT research institutes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICT research institutes to Category:Information technology research institutes

Category:ICT and development to Category:Information technology and development

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation, but use "information technology" instead of "information and communications technology" per main article Information technology and parent Category:Information technology and associated subcategories. Snocrates 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Max-Planck-Gesellschaft[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename per nomination, follow the style of main article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Max-Planck-Gesellschaft to Category:Max Planck Society

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use English name and per main article Max Planck Society. Snocrates 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, use English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per both. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per both -- all the subcats & articles use english too so it's also consistent that way. --Lquilter (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:China NGOs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:China NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in China. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:China NGOs to ~~Category:China Non-governmental organizations~~ Category:Non-governmental organizations based in China — Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this comes under one of the speedy criteria. Snocrates 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a much bigger project. Almost all the contents of Category:Non-governmental organizations by country should be reviewed, as well as this somewhat ambiguous format which could be interpreted to include NGOs operating in China but not based there. I would prefer something like Category:Non-governmental organizations based in China which would parallel Category:Organizations based in China. There are also some overlaps such as Category:Non-governmental organizations of Africa and Category:Africa NGOs.-choster (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll modify the nomination to based in since that makes sense and avoids some other future issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding in based in fixes the usage of Category:Non-governmental organizations in Vietnam which I think is being used to list organizations operating in Vietnam. If this succeeds, then I'll nominate the remainder unless someone fells they should be added to this nomination. I would not object to that being done. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vietnam is different than all the rest. I looked at it and things were correctly categorized, and I didn't have a strong sense right then of a better way to handle things. --Lquilter (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consider the larger problem with Category:Non-governmental organizations in Vietnam. This category has been added to organizations operating in Vietnam. How is that defining? How many entries will there be in this category if every organization operating there is included? How many entries will each organization have is the are categorized in every country they operate in? Clearly in the latter case this can not possibly be defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (1) All of these categories were created recently to sort through the Category:Non-governmental organizations; they are not really linked to their parent country trees. (2) Please consider issues with Category:Non-profit organizations. There's a real overlap in how these are used here on WP. --Lquilter (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But is any harm done in just expanding the abbreviations/acronyms? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, no - rename to expand is fine. I was just adding more info. --Lquilter (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. Rename per revised nom.-choster (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REname as present nom - or perhaps "Peoples Republic of China" (if that is what is intended), or something similar. NGO is a recognised international category, but should not be abbreviated in WP categories or article titles. Non-profit organisations appears to be an American tax category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per revised nom. Snocrates 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:BMI[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename as nominated, for clarity. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BMI to Category:BMI (airline)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "BMI" is correct name I think, but it is ambiguous—see BMI. (I thought it was for "body mass index!) Main article is at BMI (airline). Snocrates 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, dab & clarity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Artists' Rifles officers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was keep. No consensus to delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per January 2 CFD in which the members category was deleted. Same arguments apply to the officers cat. Otto4711 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Sting_au Talk 03:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have Category:British Army officers which is sub-categorised by regiment. Why pick on the Artist's Rifles? Further, the fact that 'members' was deleted (after comments by very few editors, initially more concerned about an apostrophe than existence) has little bearing on Officers. (Category:British Army soldiers is not subcategorised by regiment.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Artists Rifles was an unusual regiment, but if other regiments have officers categorised by regiment, this category should remain. [American wikipedians, please note that the British army is divided into regiments, to which an officer (or otehr ranks soldier) usually belongs for the whole of his career, though he may be seconded to specialised units such as the SAS or Parachute regiment]. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, the Parachute Regiment is a regiment like any other. Men join it and usually stay in it their whole careers. They're not usually seconded to it like they are to the SAS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changed my opinion after reading above comments. Sting_au Talk 06:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. British Army officers are all categorised by regiment, so there is no reason to delete this particular category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. I regret the Member's decision too (I missed it) - I doubt it would have gone the same way outside the holiday period, & would support reinstatement. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin Armstrong now has no military categorisation as the members cat was deleted - an upmerge would have been more appropriate than delete. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Armstrong is now rectified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Folk instruments[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Folk instruments to Category:Folk musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: A more exact name; in agreement with wikipedias in other languages. `'Míkka >t 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:26th Regiment Royal Artillery Association[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, misconceived idea for a category. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete it's well and fine that some former artillery folks want to get together throw a few back and reminisce about how they had Jerry on the run in '44, but alas, WP isn't the place to find your old pals. If this had been more serious, this is OCAT - not every regimental association needs to be the subject of a category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - OCAT and unnecessary. Sting_au Talk 03:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article - This is an article in category space, which should be witin a Royal Artillery category. However the article appears to be trying to use WP as an organisational website to advertise the assioation, which is contrary to WP policy. Accordingly, I am doubtful if this can survive as an article. that would depend on whehter other regimental associations have articles within a Category:British regimental assications. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly doesn't need its own category; neither does it need its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & add any material to main article on the regiment. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Xterra triathletes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete OCAT. Merge to {{cl{Triathletes}} if needed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorizing triathletes by what competitions or formats they race on is OCAT - what's next? Category:Clay court tennis players? Category:IMP-scoring bridge players? etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete variation on 'performer by performance' overcat. Maralia (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Tabloid television presenters and producers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, to subjective and fraught a categorisation. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Tabloid television" is subjective at best, pejorative at worst, and why are presenters and producers lumped together anyway? Whatever, this deserves a deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Roads in the Susquehanna Valley area[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, duplicate. Merge seems already to have been performed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Roads in the Susquehanna Valley area to Category:Roads in the Susquehanna Valley

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I was intending to merge the cats, but sickness got the best of me. --Son (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - unnecessary duplication. Sting_au Talk 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Recent video games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, unmaintainable and not really useful. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete let's nip this in the bud; only one template here, but what is "recent"? Impossible to maintain, subjective, etc.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is the past consensus on categories like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add non-defining and practically useless for research purposes. Dimadick (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Selective school[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, now-empty and duplicate. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete non-defining; schools that select their students by way of a selection process that may (and hence, may not) include yadda yadda. All schools have a selection process: for public schools, typically if you are X years old and live in the district you're selected. That's the US-style, any way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unnecessary cat for schools. Sting_au Talk 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, all schools have some criteria. If kept, at least pluralize the name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining and subjective criteria. Maralia (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Selective schools. A selective school is usually one which selects its students on academic merit, as defined in the category blurb. In the United Kingdom and Australia, and presumably other countries as well, it is the usual and official term for such schools. It is therefore a perfectly reasonable category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge required. I've changed Template:Victorian selective schools to Category:Selective schools, which was probably intended in the first place; when the transclusions get updated, I think that will empty the nominated category anyway. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Recipients of the Defense Superior Service Medal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete OCAT by non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This award doesn't make the cut for a category. LeSnail (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - agree it doesn't make the cut. Sting_au Talk 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:People at the ESRI[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:Economic and Social Research Institute. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the 2 articles here; if kept, parent cats need to be found. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - over categorization "People at ..." is pretty trivial characteristic in this instance. Sting_au Talk 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Economic and Social Research Institute and place as subcategory of Category:Think tanks. A few more articles seem to have been added since nom. Snocrates 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Panetolikos managers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Panetolikos managers to Category:Greek football managers

Nominator's rationale: Merge, premature to divide by team; there is only one article in the cat anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - unnecessary category. Sting_au Talk 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. With less than thirty articles in the parent category, subcategories are not much needed yet. Dimadick (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Masonic appendant bodies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete and upmerge. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the one article so classified (or the others mentioned in text). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unnecessary category. Sting_au Talk 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Upmerge to Category:Freemasonry since the one article is not already in that category. Snocrates 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Filipinos of Mandaya descent[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary way to categorize Filipinos; the one article included does not mention this in the bio so WP:V reasons as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Descendants of Lakandula[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. The current members of the category are mentioned in Lakandula, so effectively already listified. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete tracing decendents through 500 or so years of history makes those grouped so tangentially connected as to be trivial. What's next Category:Descendents of James I/VI - more of less contemporaneous with this person. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - trivial category. Sting_au Talk 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no view on nom, but considerable effort has been put in the past into working out who is of British (or English) royal descent. This is thus not necessarily a trival category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to see information on ancestry and descendants in the main body of any given article. But I don't see much use for it in categories. Should we have a category of descendants of Charlemagne with subcategories for each specific line? What makes Lakandula stand out? Dimadick (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. This information might be useful, but it's best served in an article or list, not a category. — Reinyday, 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinyday (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Completed Translation/bg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually, we can't delete it as it's created by a standardised translation template thing. So that'll have to be keep and unorphan. Sorry, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete not particularly useful to have a completed translation category; if kept needs parent cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the comment on the page, I'm not even sure what this category is used for. It looks to me like a category where someone can request that certain articles be translated into Bulgarian. Isn't this therefore more amenable to some sort of Wikiproject request page? Delete. Snocrates 22:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Characters from the works of Tanith Lee[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete unusual categorization criteria; characters from various works of a single author, probably a bad idea overall. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of these character articles wont be able to establish notability. So I fail to see how the category is necessary? Sting_au Talk 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.