The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The competition is no longer known as the FIFA Club World Championship, and hasn't been since 2005. – PeeJay 23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per proposition. --Jimbo[online] 23:17, 29 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States National Recording Registry[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Similar to this CFD for the Film Registry, to clarify that the category is for the recordings. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 29 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every single law school in the United States that is part of a greater university has it's own alumni category. --Archfeminist (talk) 22:53, 1 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a parent category for all the other bilateral relations categories and articles and as such is needed for navigation and organization--two reasons why categories are created and continue to exist. Hmains (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I correct in assuming that you want the current setup left how it is, so that Category:Bilateral relations could potentially have approx 20,000 (200+199+198+197+196+195+194+193+192.......+5+4+3+2+1) articles in it? --РоссавиаДиалог 16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion is that this should contain only 200 subcategories. Bilateral relations of Albania, bilateral relations of Armenia... bilateral relations of Zimbabwe. And that those cats should then contain however many articles exist. --JayHenry (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, my bad, going back and reading it again, I see that it was the suggestion was, inline with my nom. --РоссавиаДиалог 12:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should be a parent category only. Alternatively, Rename to Category:Foreign relations by country or Category:International relations by country. "Russia–Ukraine relations" would then appear in Russian and Ukranian categories (etc.). This would produce a rational category tree. I think that it would only be about 10,000 articles, since we would not need both "Russia–Ukraine relations" and "Ukraine-Russia relations", but I suspect that only a limited number of articles for some smaller countries will ever be created. They often have one embassy covering several countries that are remote from them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as parent category with Bilateral relations of X country as the subcategories. Specific X-Y relations articles belong in the Bilateral relations of X and Bilateral relations of Y categories. That's the most logical hierarchy that I can think of. --JayHenry (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: As discussion on this issue is not yet closed, why is Диалог running an automated bot changing/deleting and renaming these categories as per his own proposals? Having raised the issue for discussion, should not the discussion be closed before wholesale changes are made? --MChew (talk) 12:25, 3 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge to Category:Americans of Polish descent. As noted below, there are lots of recent precedents to make this change, and there is nothing new presented to make this the exception. BencherliteTalk 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It appears to be overcategorization and an undefining characteristic for many. More importantly, every time I see an edit regarding this category, it always seems to be a revert, whether putting it back in or taking it back out. It may be better just to not have it, since it seems to cause a lot of problems. Renaming to Category:Americans of Polish descent would fix the problems. Wizardman 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is part of a pattern of categories and the many Polish Americans are not to be discriminated against by not allowing them to have a category of their own. The edit history of this category shows no reverts; if nominator is saying articles/subcats are added/subtracted from this category, well, that is how things work at WP when article editors are sorting out the truth of things. This is no reason at all to delete a category. Hmains (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REnameCategory:Americans of Polish descent. WE have had a long series of nominations recently for these dual nationality categories. A few have been retained for specific reasons, but the majority have eben altered to this form. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per User:Peterkingiron's suggested renaming (actually, likely a merge) Mayumashu (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per suggestion by Peterkingiron. Defining characteristic but ambiguous title. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains & many precedents. Neutral/rather against on rename - I favour the Foos of X descent formula normally, but not for the best known American combinations, of which this is one, which avoid the usual ambiguity. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename - American ethnic groups have distinct histories and relate to the overall society in ways that are not necessarily comparable to the situations that may obtain in other parts of the world. Renaming these to conform to the X-nationality of Y-descent pattern would not be acceptable. Cgingold (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and how do you decide who is 'Polish American' and who is merely 'American of Polish descent'? half ancestry qualifies and less does not? the article page Polish Americans documents distinctiveness but category pages need to be clear, and not incorporate arbitrariness Mayumashu (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename (no opinion on keep/delete). "Descent" as applied correctly is overinclusive and undefining because it includes people with any Polish ancestor. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename per many above. I think the term 'Fooian American' is usually well known and understood. (The article Polish American states "A Polish American is an American citizen of Polish descent." I don't think we are at liberty to vary this definition.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per brewcrewer and roundhouse0 and others. Polish American specifically states that they are "American citizen of Polish descent". So I don't see how renaming to "Americans of Polish descent" causes a problem with the word "descent" or how it somehow "changes the definition" of Polish American. They are giving reasons to rename, not keep. Plus, there is lots of precedent for the rename. --Kbdank71 17:14, 9 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Kbdank71 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom, but it should be a category of lists, from which the existing subcategories need to be eliminated, probably by restructuring their content. Suggest Diplomatic missions is (I think) intended as an omnibus term for embassies and high commissions (the latter being government to government where the head of state is the same or between Commonwealth countries even where the Queen is not head of state. I would suggest a systematic rename of all categories and articles to Diplomatic missions "to" fooland. We also need (and - I think - have) a category "lists of diplomatic missions by sending country". Generally a country only has one embassy in another country. "Diplomatic Missions in Moscow" should therefore merely duplicate "Diplomatic Missions to Russia". Consulates and Consulates-General are strictly not diplomatic missions, but are providing serices to (a) to citizens of the sending country who fall into difficulty (b) authenticating notorised documents and other services to citizens. These should appear in a parallel series of categories, perhaps "Consular Missions". There will inevitably be a few anomalies, such as the British diplomatic mission to Taiwan being offically a trade mission, but that cannot be helped. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inline with the other category under discussion (immediately below this one), another possibility is Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by receiving country, Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country, or variations thereof, as per whatever concensus may be reached. And the point on consulates/consuls is absolutely valid and well taken, and would suggest the relevant project look at it. As is the point on Taiwan/Province of Taiwan/Republic of China/whatever you wanna call it; if credentials aren't presented and/or the Vienna Conventions aren't in force in regards to relations, one can't call it a diplomatic mission, and in my opinion doesn't belong, but that's more of a content issue, rather than category issue, I guess. --РоссавиаДиалог 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Why not collect all the articles "(List of) Diplomatic Missions in Foo" and "(List of) Diplomatic Missions of Foo" into a single new subcat Category:Lists of diplomatic missions of Category:Diplomatic missions? The existing 'by country' and 'by host country' subcats would then be organised as container categories per Russavia's vision (and per usual Wikipedia convention). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that this change that you propose would actually make things more complicated than actually trying to simplify it. As it is, there is no difficulty in navigating these categories. I am against the change. Aquintero (talk) 19:25, 1 July, 2008 (UTC)
Keep: I cannot see a navigation problem. Russavia's categories sort articles about individual embassies. If the user wants to look at embassies of another country they can navigate via the respective two country's Diplomatic Missions by country articles. Kransky (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of creating all those stubs and categories, and then expecting Wikipedia to accomodate your taxonomy, why don't you for once create some actual content? Kransky (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The route you explained I believe shows that you don't understand how categorisation works on WP, for one should not have to navigate by way of articles, categories are designed for that specific purpose, and this can be attested to by the above editors who have also seen a need to recategorise. --РоссавиаДиалог 06:17, 7 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Kbdank71 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I am the subject of an RFC at present in relation to this category, and it is my position that Category:Diplomatic missions by country should contain only categories where possible, but am offering the above as a compromise solution. --РоссавиаДиалог 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Rename to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country. The present suggestion could refer to lists of Missions "to" or "by" (i.e. from) fooland. In fact the underlying articles are not particularly useful as navigation aids, since they merely indicate what countries and cities host missions, rahter than linking to articles on the missions themsleves. This means that he lists are a variety of rather pointless listcruft. I would suggest their conversion to tables, with the final column being a link to an article relating to the diplomatic mission (or consulate). My immediate reaction to the lists was "delete category and articles categorised", but that seems too radical, since I think the articles might be converted into a useful nagivation aid. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists by receiving country are certainly needed too, possibly called "by destination". The article version that you referred to could have been useful, but I suspect the information on Russian missions in WP is less well developed than that of some other countries. For the United Kingdom, there are lists of ambassadors from Britain to each particular country, often stretching back into the 18th century or beyond. I think there may be articles in the embassies too, but the lists would be much better if they led to some specific article. That might be done as a dab link to the word "embassy". This is not an area that I am working on, but have occasionally dabbled with British embassies when producing biographies of those who were for a time members of Parliament. I suspect that giving the name of the current ambassador (as in the article version that you cited) would be a maintenance nightmare. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually now leaning towards Category:Lists of diplomatic missions for the lists, and Category:Diplomatics mission by sending country and Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country for the categories, country specific list and individual mission articles, as per usage of terms in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (what a hedonistic 6 weeks that convention must have been). In terms of the diplomatic missions of Russia article I developed, there are 2 main reasoning points for the inclusion of heads of mission in the list. Firstly, inline with official usage of the terms as per the Vienna Convention, a diplomatic mission refers to the official physical human representational presence of one country in another, and the mission is required to have a head of mission (an ambassador or high commissioner, or other as per articles in the Convention); they are an essential part of a diplomatic mission, and they are usually notable people. Secondly, as you pointed out, information on non-US/UK/Canadian/a few other countries missions on WP are sorely lacking, and their inclusion is aimed at helping to alleviate the bias that is somewhat endemic on WP; it will encourage further article development; it may take some time, but relevant redlinks are important. In regards to embassy article links, the linking to specific articles which can cover both the mission as covered by the definition of the V.C.D.R., and by what has also become another word for the mission chancery, is more evident in this list. In regards to maintenance of the heads of missions (ambassadors, etc), it is a really easy process to do, as most foreign ministries around the world maintain a diplomatic list, and make this list available. --РоссавиаДиалог 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia - could we deal with one new idea at a time? I am not comfortable with including lists of ambassadors in articles about "diplomatic missions" (in an archaic sense a mission is the people, but under modern usage the term refers to the buildings and the institution of an embassy). As mentioned I strongly suggest ambassadors (or "Heads of Mission") are listed in separate articles. I also do not like cumbersome terms "receiving country" and "sending country". Kransky (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
maybe so, but 'country' is the convention/standard in WP, not 'state'. Hmains (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, to change these articles seem to complicate things more. Also, I too agree that we shouldn't add ambassadors to the articles because in all honesty it would be impossible to be constantly updating the names of ambassadors on 190 articles. Aquintero (talk) 19:25, 1 July, 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Russavia, but your List of diplomatic missions in Russia article is poorly designed. I would not use a table in the way you have - the photographs are too small in cells, and the repetition of countries with multiple missions in Russia across the same column looks awkward. Some ideas you have are good. This isn't one of them. Kransky (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion Kransky as we are all entitled to it, but my opinion is, is that the table is very well designed, but as List of Presidents of Venezuela, List of Prime Ministers of Canada, List of Governors of California, List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition, and a whole host of other featured lists show, the smaller images are OK and in some cases necessary, and don't retract from the ability of a list from reaching featured list status. With nearly 40 images so far in that article, and more to come due to myself 'recruiting' people in Moscow and Saint Petersburg to supply photos, such a setup is desired so that it is formatted, all available space on the page is used, and everything fits into place. You need to remember that lists exist for the main part for reaching articles, they don't exist just for a list of this and that. But again, this is best suited to a discussion on content, not on the categories. However, on categories, if you take a look at this article as of this edit, you will notice that the only way to use that article as it stood then to navigate to other articles was by the massive see also list - a well designed and formatted article wouldn't need that see also list, the links would be part of the article itself. --РоссавиаДиалог 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might think your table is very well designed - just as all mothers love their babies. I just hope you are not going to be wasting your time because it looks like a nomination for AfD on the grounds that it duplicates Diplomatic missions of Russia. Kransky (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have said on a couple of previous occasions, go ahead and AfD anything you deem fit for AfD. --РоссавиаДиалог 06:21, 7 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete as a list already exists. Angus McLellan(Talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is certainly not categorization by performance; these people are members of an historical and recognizable acting group and are categorized appropriate, as such. Hmains (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify - Though rather older than many cases, this fits well with performer by performanceovercategorization. This is applied as much to TV series as to single performances. the fact that this is an earlier case of it should make no difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment read the article. This is a series of cinema movies ending in 1944; nothing to do with TV which hardly existed then. Hmains (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors familiar with Our Gang are probably familiar with them through the television syndication of the films. Otto4711 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It sounds like Hmains is saying this is more akin to Category:Monty Python members, than to a grouping of a series cast. How accurate is that? Postdlf (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it's not at all accurate. The Monty Python troupe membership was small and stable (more or less, Cleese did leave for the final series of the TV show). Kids were cycled in and out of the Our Gang films as desired by the producers. We don't characterize actors based on film series. Category:Thin Man film actors or Category:Jaws actors would be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 55 members seems too many for the Monty Python exception. Even when some are dogs. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 1 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - Why are there so many songs about rainbows? Well, there really aren't, and in fact none of the songs in this category are about rainbows at all. I Won't Last a Day Without You contains the lyric "when there's no getting over that rainbow," Over the Rainbow is about the land that's over the rainbow, The Rainbow Connection is about songs about rainbows (of which there are few apparently), Rainbow in the Dark is apparently about Ronnie James Dio's former band Rainbow and She's a Rainbow is about a woman. This additionally suffers from the vague inclusion criteria that has doomed so many other Songs about categories. Otto4711 (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no notable song is about rainbows, only has it in the title. DAPIEEATERREVIEW ME 23:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we have this we may as well have "Songs about Dogs" and "Songs about the sky" as well. Here because I'm here (talk) 20:47, 30 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Discuss. These are examples of the two different naming formats under the parent Category:Songs by war. We should standardize. My preference is for Songs of (war name) because (War name) songs could be construed to include songs written about the war but not during the war. Otto4711 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment actually, this is part of a larger problem in the parent category Category:Songs by theme in which some category names start with 'Song' and some end with 'song' Hmains (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at the parent, a number of the Songs about foo categories would become ambiguous if renamed to Foo songs. Songs about California would become ambiguous if renamed to California songs for instance. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this intended as a test case to establish which is the preferred formulation? I'm guessing that you intend to follow up by renaming the other sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I should have made it explicit that this is a test case. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 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:Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province[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 the two empties, rename the other. Kbdank71 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match name of article (Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)) which was renamed through RM. Failed speedy rename, but two of these were already renamed before the renaming admin noticed the objection, so I intend this discussion to stand for all three. Pfainuktalk 09:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea from Pfainuk. Even the previous name of the article on the province would be better. Having it in spanish when there is English usage is silly. Though, two of these catagories are empty, one has three empties....is this a precursor to a push to expand them, Pfain? Narson (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be quite good (though categories aren't normally my thing), but this is by accident more than by design :). Basically I nominated them for speedy renaming, and someone objected that they didn't meet the criteria. But the objection was put under all three to cover all of them and when an admin came along to rename them, s/he didn't notice the objection until after s/he'd already moved two of the categories (without deleting the originals). I figured since the third would have to be renamed through CFD anyway I might as well go for consensus for all three, that way to avoid any process dispute. Pfainuktalk 10:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge per nom. Better known in the English language by this form. Justintalk 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. Category names should in my view be no longer than necessary for clarity. However, is "cities" an appropraite category for an area so little inhabited? Would not "towns and villages" be better? I am not an expert here and would bow to the views of others. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the other Argentine provinces use Cities in..., though other than that I don't have any strong objection. For info, there are two reasonably-sized settlements in the province (Río Grande and Ushuaia). From my guidebooks to Argentina I could only find evidence of one other town - Tolhuin - plus several estancias on Tierra del Fuego island. Falklands/South Georgian/Antarctic settlements clearly shouldn't be included for POV reasons. Pfainuktalk 08:53, 30 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.
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 all. BencherliteTalk 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match the pattern of most of the countries Hmains (talk) 16:52, 29 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete! And move to the bad jokes section. And that Gwen Stefani song isn't included in the category either. Lugnuts (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to WP:DAFT. Thats even worse than the "Songs about Rainbows" category above. Here because I'm here (talk) 20:50, 30 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. At the very least, fix the capitalization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fix the capitalization. Was only nominated a few days ago for deletion (here), with a keep (albeit, a weak one). Lugnuts (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining characteristic. There are only three albums in the category, and one of them has a title, albeit a non-linguistic one: (i.e. Led Zeppelin IV). If that's untitled, then presumably o+> (i.e. Love Symbol) would have been untitled too, but it was not treated as such in the media. --Metropolitan90(talk) 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Non-free image of Prince album title replaced by ASCII representation. --Metropolitan90(talk) 13:34, 1 July 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.
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.
rename to Category:Buddhist views to match other religions' similar categories in the parent category, Category:Views by religion. Of course, the articles will be varied as the nature and name of these categories must perforce require. Hmains (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Views? Well, what is "views by religion?" This category seems like another hodge-podge of social issues, political ideologies, identity politics, and almost anything that has to do with a religion and something else. This category is itself hopelessly vague - aren't Christian philosophies "Christian viewpoints?" Don't Bahá'í texts express "Bahá'í teachings?" Other than articles on places or biographies, very little under the main heading of any religious category couldn't fit this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 29 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.
