Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 14 June 16 >

June 15[edit]

Category:Emergency services in NSW[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Emergency services in NSW to Category:Emergency services in New South Wales
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Housekeeping expansion of state abbreviation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 15 June 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:PDAs[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PDAs to Category:Personal digital assistants
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Also: Category:PDA software by platform to Category:Personal digital assistant software by platform and Category:PDA software to Category:Personal digital assistant software —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 15 June 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:Christian nazis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category has been added as a subcategory of Category:Christians by ideology, which includes Category:Christian pacifists, Category:Christian anarchists, Category:Christian socialists, etc. These are all distinctive ideologies that have adopted a specific name that includes the word "Christian" in it. This is not the case with Nazism — they didn't/don't call themselves "Christian Nazis" or "Christian National Socialists", as far as I am aware. As such, it i overcategorization by trivial intersection of religion and political ideology. (At the time of nomination Adolf Hitler is the only article in the category so I think it's safe to say I'm not missing the boat on the existence of some movement that does call themselves "Christian Nazis".) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Was Hitler a Christian by anything more than descent? If so, he does not belong in the category, which would make it empty. It might be possible to devise a category for extreme right wing Christian politicians, which could include (for example) Franco and Mussolini, but I doubt it would be a very useful category. I suspect it has been created merely to contrast with Category:Christian socialists, but that and pacifism are serious Christian political positions (though not ones that I hold). Nazi (save for historical uses in c.1922-1950) is a term of abuse, huled by opponents. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm somewhat dubious about this particular intersection, but I'm not yet decided as to whether it might prove to be a valid and viable category. Given that the overwhelming majority of Germans and Austrians -- and of course, Nazis -- were at least nominally Christians, it's probably not terribly useful to underline that fact with a Category. And it is unquestionably absurd to place Adolph Hitler in this category, since he was in no way a practicing Christian. However, it is entirely possible that there were individuals who could fairly be characterized as "Christian Nazis" -- if for example, they espoused views similar to those of the neo-Nazi Christian Identity movement, or if they belonged to a church whose minister articulated such views. (Note: I've added Category:Christian Identity as a sub-cat of Category:Christians by ideology.) I think we tend to be more aware of the Christian churches and people who stood out for their opposition to Nazism, a subject which has been well documented. I suspect there were also people who roughly fit the description I've sketched out, but I simply don't know if there were enough such individuals for this category to be populated along the lines I've suggested. Cgingold (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with Category:Christian fascists 70.55.88.22 (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not category material - nirvana2013 (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category for Clerical fascists or Protestant Reich Church members might be doable. We already have Category:Christian Identity and Category:Christianity and antisemitism. This one is just an oddball intersection. We don't do "Christian/Political party" categories as far as I can see. There's no Category:Christian libertarians or Category:Christians Greens--T. Anthony (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Doesn't have any entries in it, and has only ever had one entry, added by someone clearly with an agenda to push. Delete until we have some better candidates. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, it should also be noted that Esimal (the creator) is a troll. - Gennarous (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - This category might actually have potential if it could be proved that many such people existed and proudly claimed both titles for themselves. That said, it hasn't yet been done, and the surprisingly (if unnecessarily) candid statement by Gennarous above is important - I would have simply stated "POV pusher". The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:01, 18 June 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:Tony! Toni! Tone! songs[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tony! Toni! Tone! songs to Category:Tony! Toni! Toné songs
Nominator's rationale: I made this category not realizing that I accidentally left the é out of Toné. Can this be speedily renamed as a spelling error? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably You also left out an exclamation point: Category:Tony! Toni! Toné! songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 15 June 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:Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)[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 Category:Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) to Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee (United Kingdom). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) to Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from speedy section — needs to be pluralized and abbreviation in parentheses can be omitted. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename' per nom. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - legislators can and do serve in a multitude of positions within legislatures over the course of a career. Categorizing them on the basis of the committees on which they serve or chair is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee (UK) Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee (United Kingdom), consistent with title of main article. At first glance, I thought that this pertained to a US legislative committee. But there is no such committee in the US Congress. In fact, it's neither US nor legislative, so Otto's concerns aren't relevant to this category. But I do think it should indicate which country it is. It also badly needs a parent category or two. Cgingold (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do UK legislators not serve on or chair multiple committees during the course of their legislative careers? I don't see how a distinction between US and UK legislators is relevant here. Otto4711 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've missed my point... We're not even talking about a "legislative" committee -- as the category description points out, this is a civil service position. Cgingold (talk) 04:59, 18 June 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:Intelligence gathering legislation[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 at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_22#Category:Intelligence_gathering_legislation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Intelligence gathering legislation to Category:Intelligence gathering law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Many of the articles contained in this category are not statutes (and therefore, not legislation). We should broaden its scope to include all law involving intelligence gathering. —Markles 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issue addressed by Markles is just one of the problems with this category. A more fundamental issue is the scope in terms of subject matter. Although it specifies "Intelligence gathering", the articles currently in the category cover an array of subjects ranging from regulation of intelligence agencies & activities, to protection of classified information, to criminal sanctions for espionage. Amazingly, the one article that directly pertains to the narrow subject of "Intelligence gathering" -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- was not even in this category until I added it, despite being the most well-known of all U.S. intelligence-related laws thanks to being in the news continually for the last several years.

In my judgement "Intelligence gathering law" per se is probably too narrow to serve as a viable category. We might want to broaden it to cover the regulation of intelligence agencies & activities, which would include much of what is currently in the category, but would I think exclude the Official Secrets Act, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. We could also consider broadening even further so as to include all of the above.

One last issue has to do with the parent categories. The category's creator placed it in Category:Espionage, which I changed to Category:Intelligence (information gathering) -- a better match for "Intelligence gathering". He also placed it in Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation -- indicating that he intended it to be used for articles pertaining to the United States. At present there is only one non-US article, Official Secrets Act, but there are two other articles on other Official Secrets Acts, and probably other non-US articles as well. So we need to make a decision on that aspect too. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either way, this category needs some serious work and I don't really know where to begin. —Markles 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 12:48, 22 June 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:Indian railway accidents[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian railway accidents to Category:Railway accidents in India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This would match all similar categories in Category:Railway accidents by country, for example Category:Railway accidents in France (not "French railway accidents"). Yechiel (Shalom) 15:59, 15 June 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:Former dictators[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former dictators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category Category:Dictators has already been deleted by another discussion, and the same reasons apply here: the only difference between "Dictators" and "Former dictators" is a temporal one, while the main reasons why the main category was deleted (Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is) remains the same. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as I would like to have a category for Dictators, I'm afraid there's no way to come up with workable criteria that would yield a list of names that would have unanimous support. And adding "Former" just compounds the problem, since that term is one that we avoid using in categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had forgotten that I created the category. :) Where is it stated that we avoid the word "former" in categories? And the word "avoid" is not definitive. Also, we seem to have a working category for "Massacres," Category:Massacres, which seems to have survived over time by coming to some workable criteria over time. We limited it to obvious, single-event, massacres basically, and put some "See also" links to other less-specific and more controversial applications of the term "massacre" such as the categories for aerial bombing, firebombing, etc.. The benefit of hindsight allows more consensus over time as to who fits in the category "dictator." It seems to be working in this category. We go by multiple reliable sources, mainstream historians, etc.. People need to know what a dictator is, don't you think? What good is history if we can't point out a few obvious dictators? And how better can a encyclopedia better serve its readers? Who is more dangerous than a dictator? "Dictator" is a common term. I agree that a current dictators category would be too controversial. Due to the lack of consensus on reliable sources and historians and degree of dictatorship. That consensus happens over time as the historical record is made clear. And my view of an example of a current dictatorship is a 2-party system without runoff elections. That consensus may take a little time. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral point of view does not apply just for current things involving many points of view. Things that took place in the past and polarized opinions about it should also be treated neutrally, just as if was something taking place today, even if by today one of both sides have become the most common one. An example: The second term goverment of Juan Domingo Perón, that was ended by the Revolución Libertadora ("Liberating Revolution" in english). By that date, the country was divided in two main factions, peronists and anti-peronists. The view of the peronists was that Perón was the legitimate governor and the revolution was the dictatorship. On the other hand, the anti-peronists thought that Perón was the dictator, and that this coup was liberating them (that's why it had that name). So... how would you categorize either Perón or Lonardi and Aramburu as "Former dictators" without asuming either the peronists or the anti-peonists as being right despite of the other group? Benito Sifaratti (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word "dictator" is thrown around a lot. That is why we might agree to only put people in the category where there is agreement by a larger percentage of historians over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a ruler who is unconstrained by law.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
a ruler with absolute power and authority, especially one who exercises it tyrannically.
http://www.cpsd.us/Web/Curriculum/Drama/animalfarmvocab.html
A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.
http://www.saburchill.com/history/hist003.html --Timeshifter (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those contradicting definitions just prove that the word "dictator" has no universal criteria to define it. For a ruler to truly be unconstrained by law or opposition, there would have to be no law around the ruling. It may apply for a tribal chief or the leader of a small and informal organization, never for the ruler of a country since some centuries ago. What we usually find, and label informally as "dictatorship", is a national goverment that is ruled by laws but has the factic power to modify, ignore or "bend" them at will. But that is ultimately a political definition. Most governors usually regarded as dictators don't deny in an open manner the national constitucion, but resort instead to claim an emergency, a transitory state of things or a certain "legal" background, like the congress delegating their power the president or such. Do we talk then about a ruler "not restricted by a constitution", or about an exceptional case? That's the point, the point where the "dictator/not dictator" debates begin.
The frontier between a leader versed well enough into the ways of power as to develop the right strategies to always have his desired outcomes, and a dictator, is not written in stone anywhere. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Which is why we need this category. It has not really been a controversial category. People can remove names from the category anytime they want. The current names have been there for months without problems. It is easy to spot some of the dictators with hindsight. Here is another dictionary definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator
1. a: a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome. b: one holding complete autocratic control. c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively.
I don't see the need to try to add the category to people where there is dispute. I do see the need for the category. When adults, and especially children, ask about dictators, it is easier to give them some examples rather than try to explain with definitions. They need multiple examples from all sides of the political spectrum. An encyclopedia should give multiple examples of dictators. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:23, 20 June 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:Famous Neighborhoods[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Famous Neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as inherently subjective. "Famous" isn't a good word for categories. BencherliteTalk 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nom is correct re the use of the word "famous" in category names. Each of the articles is already included in at least one additional neighborhood, street or district category. Otto4711 (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - famous amongst whom? Hunter's Bar is famous if you listen carefully to Arctic Monkeys lyrics. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too subjective. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "famous" shouldn't be used in category names, as a rule, and this category isn't really needed regardless of how it's named. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everybody's neighborhood is famous including mine. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:56, 18 June 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:Honorary Doctors of the University of Chicago[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Honorary Doctors of the University of Chicago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. So now that WP has a complete phalanx of alumni categories, we're going to start getting into honorary degree recipient categories? Ay yai yai. Anyway, I don't think receiving an honorary degree from any university is terribly defining for a person, since the honorary degree usually comes after they achieve something as a way of recongising the previous achievement — it's not just something that is given out of the blue and defines a person in a self-standing way. Categories like this would probably be better treated as a list, and it could be completely appropriate to create such a list for any university or college, in my opinion. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as overcategorization by award. BencherliteTalk 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm afraid I have to agree with Good Ol’factory's sentiments on this. "Ay yai yai" sums things up pretty well. I don't want to say that honorary degrees are handed out like gumdrops -- but neither are they terribly meaningful. They generally function as part of a quid pro quo, helping to lure high-profile individuals to serve as college commencement speakers. Let's close the door on this before Kofi Annan winds up with another two dozen categories. Kill it before it multiplies! :) Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. I'm pretty sure we've deleted several of these on similar grounds. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the same reasons I nominated the previous category. The notion of splitting by institution was raised there and rejected. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcat. Maralia (talk) 04:46, 16 June 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:Fiji Islands alpine skiers[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fiji Islands alpine skiers to Category:Fijian alpine skiers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "Fiji Islands" to "Fijian" as the adjective for the nationality of a person from the country of Fiji. See recent precedents directly on point here and here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match other categories. Doma-w (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match other categories. (There may be a case for using 'Fiji Islands' throughout, but it should be made for the whole Fiji bunch. In the meantime let us use Fijian.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:20, 20 June 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:Football Players from Maramureş[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: Double merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Football Players from Maramureş (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Too specific - no other football players category does it by sub-national division. Category:People from Maramureş County can be used in combination with Category:Romanian footballers. Biruitorul Talk 06:08, 15 June 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:Frank-N-Dank albums[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Frank-N-Dank albums to Category:Frank n Dank albums
Nominator's rationale: Official site doesn't use a dash and the "n" is uncapitalised since it's short for "and". Spellcast (talk) 02:23, 15 June 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:Brenda Song soundtracks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brenda Song soundtracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not categorize soundtracks on the basis of what artists appear on them. Otto4711 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if I knew who Brenda Song was I couldn't support this. What a mess if these proliferated. Cgingold (talk)
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:Brenda Song shows[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brenda Song shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not categorize TV shows by the people who appear in them. Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if I knew who Brenda Song was I couldn't support this. What a mess if these proliferated. Cgingold (talk)
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:Brenda Song movies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brenda Song movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not categorize films by the people who appear in them. Otto4711 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Overcategorization. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if I knew who Brenda Song was I couldn't support this. What a mess if these proliferated. Cgingold (talk)
  • Delete this and two preceding. I do not add listify as that is already done in Brenda Song. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 15 June 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_June_15&oldid=1074800739"