Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6[edit]

Category:Curling by year[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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Curling by year to Category:Years in curling
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate categories. Could merge either way, but this way matches to the parent article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:17, 6 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:Literature-related lists[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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Literature-related lists to Category:Literature lists
Nominator's rationale: Merge; Duplicates the already-established Category:Literature lists. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:22, 6 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:Automobile commercial failures[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) 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Automobile commercial failures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: List of automobiles that were commercial failures was discussed for deletion in August 2006 and the decision was DELETE on the main grounds that there is no clearly defined definition of a commercial failure so any entry is inherently PoV . This category seems to be a recreation of the previously mentioned list and the same determinants apply Malcolma (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent category Commercial failures has been discussed twice along with its subcats. Both times resulted in no consensus, but a later CFD for one of the subcats did result in delete. Perhaps if this category is deleted we should re-examine the Commercial failures structure. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — There is no way to measure a commercial failure. For example, should almost all Italian cars be included because they have been failures in the U.S. marketplace? It would also be necessary to list all large SUVs and trucks in this category now that GM is shutting down factories. — CZmarlin (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a very similar article was deleted, and I believe all reasons stated during that AfD are relevant here. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "failure" is unacceptably POV for categorization purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. swaq 16:15, 10 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:Novels by Lori Jareo[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 head note does not seem to be supported on the project page which says use years and genre. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Novels by Lori Jareo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unncessary category. Author has only one self-published work, and it is doubtful any legitimate publisher will touch her for any potential future works. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Harumph. This one is a bit of a bother. On the one hand, I've suggested merging Lori Jareo into Another Hope, since quite literally everything in the "bio" article is about the controversy over the novel. There really is no biography to speak of -- though it did squeak by AFD with a "no concensus Keep".

On the other hand, however, the head note at Category:Novels by author states: "Please note that all single-author novel articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only novel the author has recorded." It's not clear to me where concensus on that was hammered out, but it seems to be accepted practice, both for that and other analagous categories. And it isn't restricted to authors who have Wikipedia bios. That said, I seriously doubt that anybody gave any thought to the issue of self-published books, so it's certainly a legitimate question to raise. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have no feelings on the matter either way - I created the category specifically and only because of that head note on the Novels by author category. Katharineamy (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regardless of whether we have an article about the author herself, all books should be categorized by author (cf. albums/songs by artist, films by director, etc.) — CharlotteWebb 15:31, 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:Milliman founder[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) 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Milliman founder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as unnecessary category with no potential for growth. BencherliteTalk 10:03, 6 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:Gloria Estefan tours[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) 19:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gloria Estefan tours to Category:Gloria Estefan concert tours
Nominator's rationale: Rename per the result at this CfD. This particular subcat wasn't in the main category at the time of the nomination. BencherliteTalk 10:00, 6 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:Rugby, England[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) 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rugby, England to Category:Rugby, Warwickshire
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article, Rugby, Warwickshire. Listed as a speedy, but ineligible. BencherliteTalk 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Rugby, England to Category:Rugby, Warwickshire - consistent with naming conventions on place names, to use the county as the disambiguator. Also to match main article name. DWaterson (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two comments were moved here from the speedy section. BencherliteTalk 09:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't really have an agree or disagree here. I will say that almost all other categories based on English towns simply are the name of the town. Yes rugby is the name of sport as well but we don't have a Category called Rugby. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is indeed no category Category:Rugby but it does contain Santiago Gomez Cora (a rugby player) and demonstrates why it won't do for Rugby, Warwickshire. (I prefer 'Rugby, England' myself, contrary to the UK naming conventions.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as original nominator. Category:Rugby is too ambiguous even though it doesn't exist at the moment, and of course Category:Rugby union and Category:Rugby league would not be subcats of Category:Rugby. Deprecate speedy renaming policy due to the silliness of not having a criterion for uncontroversial renaming (unlike uncontroversial requested moves). DWaterson (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original nom. 1) "Rugby" is too ambiguous; 2) standard convention is for "Rugby, Warwickshire"; 3) no-one in the UK would think of referring to the place as "Rugby, England", and as such the current name isn't the most likely to be used (I daresay if left, sooner or later we'll find a parallel creation of Category:Rugby, Warwickshire made by someone who was unaware of this one). Grutness...wha? 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that there isn't another Rugby in the UK so someone in the UK would say 'Rugby', or 'Rugby, near Coventry/Birmingham'. Someone not in the UK will find 'Rugby, England' more useful than 'Rugby, Warwickshire' as Warwickshire is not known globally (or even in the UK). (There is Category:Birmingham, England.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of us do - thankfully people in many parts of the world know about the geography of other countries (one reason why there's not been a suggestion of moving categories to titles like Category:Birmingham, United States). Not every country has people who retain only a myopic local view. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I also deplore the application of American practice of adding the state to the original English places. However, Rugby is a special case because it is probably more widely used worldwide for two codes football than for the town. Where we have to have a disambiguator, I would prefer the county (as nom) to the country. I am English. Confusion with Birmingham, Alabama, USA, explains the abberant naming of the Birmingham category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 10 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:Eugene C. Eppley[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) 19:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eugene C. Eppley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little to no likelihood of expansion, lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several businesses that Eppley was associated with that will be of note. Keeping the category is the only reasonable way to attribute these topics accordingly, and to avoid the development of a template that will capture their commonality. • Freechild'sup? 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would you want to avoid the creation of a template, and why does Eppley's article, with or without template, not constitute an appropriate navigational hub for the things that are named for him? Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping Eppley's business and philanthropic ventures, as well as namesake institutions together would make for a clunky template; however, a category provides easy connections. It appears that this is a logical categorization being singled out because the subject doesn't have the name recognition of Andrew Carnegie or Steve Jobs. • Freechild'sup? 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the Eugene C. Eppley Administration Building at the University of Nebraska at Omaha does not need an article, and "Eugene C. Eppley" is not defining for the university itself. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added several articles to the category, and continue to find more topics relevant to the work and spastic interests of Eppley; these are too random to be included in a single template about Eppley, and a category is the only suitable grouping for these topics. • Freechild'sup? 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you're actually doing is creating stub articles on topics of dubious notability in an attempt to save the category. You have yet to offer up any reason why a template could not serve as an appropriate navigational device. Otto4711 (talk) 14:05, 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:Trần Hưng Đạo[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) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trần Hưng Đạo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, low likelihood of expansion, main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 09:24, 6 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:Executive orders of John Kennedy[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: instant rename. Fair point - I closed that CfD and ought to have picked up the non-controversial point. Consider this as a correction of the previous CfD close, rather than a true "speedy". BencherliteTalk 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Executive orders of John Kennedy to Category:Executive orders of John F. Kennedy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match lead article and category. This was suggested at a previous CFD but not implemented. Otto4711 (talk) 09:13, 6 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:WAGs[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: endorse creation of Category:Footballers' Wives and Girlfriends (the expanded name is probably better for clarity) as a defining characteristic of the women in question in the UK context, but not necessarily creating a precedent for categorising other companions of notable people. People should only be in the category if they are notable enough in their own right to have an article anyway and, as Johnbod says, the category can be cleared of "trivial" inclusions, but the potential for BLP issues is no worse here than elsewhere. Hopefully Tris2000 will have learnt more about category procedures; perhaps next time he's involved in a debate, it won't be 17 days old before being closed... NB do we need to consider a "category for discussion" template for requests to endorse creation of a category? BencherliteTalk 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WAGs
Nominator's rationale: I created the Category:WAGs category because this is a very common British abbreviation and category, standing for "Wives And Girlfriends (of soccer/football players)". See WAGs for more information, or wiktionary:WAG for a definition. The term has gained common parlance in Britain. However, when I tried to add the WAGs category to all the obvious contenders (most of whom are mentioned in WAGs) such as Cheryl Cole, Louise Redknapp, Joanna Taylor, Nancy Dell'Olio, Alex Curran, Victoria Beckham, Coleen McLoughlin, these were all reset by someone who was unaware of the definition of WAGs and thought that I was vandalising a page. See discussions at the end of User_talk:Thingg and on my own User_talk:Tris2000. An administrator noticed that the user had made a mistake in referring me as a "vandal" and retracted all my warnings, but has recommended that I bring the category up here for discussion. This is a cultural difference; however, renaming the category "Wives And Girlfriends" would make no sense, as WAGs is in such common use in the UK that most people don't even associate what it stands for. Anyone looking for the category would look under "Wa" in the categories list and certainly wouldn't look under "Wi" (which, with so many categories commencing with "Wiki", is a major pain as it is). I would like to keep the catgory as Category:WAGs but as the word clearly means something else in other cultures, I need some guidance. Can I add the WAGs category to the above obvious candidates (and more), or should I rename it as Category:WAGs_(Wives_And_Girlfriends)? I'd rather not, because adding four letters "WAGs" as a category will be much easier for everyone else who wishes to add to the list in the future. Many thanks - the dispute with the Thingg has now ended and he apologised very nicely for the accusation, but if I start adding WAGs category to all the above girls again, I imagine someone else, unaware of the British usage of the term, will then try and revert it again! Tris2000 (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:WAGs, complementary to article WAGs. Tris2000 is correct re UK usage. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom & R; undoubtedly defining in all, or nearly all, cases. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept to something other then WAG. Category:Wives and Girlfriends might be an alternative but that name is ambiguous. Maybe Category:Wives and Girlfriends of soccer/football players? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why are we categorizing the wives and girlfriends of footballers? Does that mean we should do it for all sports? Is this restricted to the UK? If kept, and restricted to the UK, then Category:British footballers' female companions. WAGs are Wild Assed Guesses, and therefore extremely ambiguously named. 70.51.9.251 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the category is not tagged for discussion. If it were I would say delete as trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry - I meant to tag it for discussion, I'm not sure how to do it but if someone would be happy to help I would appreciate it. Those who say it's "trivia" or wonder why we should do it should remember that this is a cultural thing: in the UK there probably is not a single person in the entire country who does not know what WAG is, and probably not a single tabloid on any given day that doesn't refer to the term WAGs. Never referred to as "Wives and Girlfriends". Re: another comment here, it started off being just British footballers but the term is growing in Europe, and is often in the Swedish and German press when referring to their own players' wives. Nuria Bermúdez would certainly be an example of a Spanish WAG, for argument's sake. Tris2000 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from your description, it sounds like it should be deleted because it is very trivial in nature. Or we could go around categorizing celebrities caught by paparazzi without panties on, since that's a very popular past time as well. 70.51.10.197 (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, it's very much a category, and is certainly not trivial in the UK. Just check out what happens when you stick WAGs in Google... over 2 million references. If you put it in Google News UK there are 770 references in British newspapers from the last week alone. Therefore you need to understand that the term is 100% British culture, but doesn't only apply to British footballers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris2000 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The verifiability of many one-night-stands and occassional GFs would violate Wikipedia BLP policies. There are only 300,000 hits on google [1] as opposed to 400,000 ghits for guess [2] (very rough and ready). Since you did nothing to remove the spurious hits from OTHER SORTS OF WAG, your 2 million reference is faulty. If I searched for a type of pornography... double penetration actresses, I find that there are almost as many hits as for the footballer term [3], 250,000 ghits. Does that mean we should categorize that? Hell sex tape scandals get more ghits [4], 500,000 - so maybe the participants in sex tape scandals should be categorized. A raw google search on sex tapes results in 22 million hits [5] 70.51.11.11 (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are all sorts of "cultural things" for which we don't have categories, because such categorization is trivial. We don't have Category:Yuppies for instance, despite there being few people in the US who don't know what a yuppie is. Otto4711 (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we had people who were only notable as yuppies, then they should have a category, but I imagine we don't. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Support - Trivial, unverifiable, particularly with reference to girlfriends. Would have to include every woman who'd ever slept with a sportsman based on speculation in the tabloids. (Incidentally, it has been pointed out that you can't be a "wife and girlfriend", but rather a "wife OR girlfriend", but that throws up a rather unfortunate acronym...) Camillus 10:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is used of the "official" ones, who go on tours with team etc. But certainly needs clearing of any more casual figures. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Widely used term and a significant enough phenomenon in popular culture and media, in England at least. (Not one which holds the slightest of interest for me personally, incidentally). Those that are wives should be easily verifiable, the majority of girlfriends too. Although it may be difficult to know where to draw the line at the peripheries of the category, that's no reason for exclusion of the category as a whole. (Even for more doubtful claimants, the fact that their validity or otherwise can generate much tabloid copy may make even these cases notable (sub-categories fake WAGs and ex-WAGs anyone?)). The origin as an acronym is from wives and girlfriends collectively but the application of the term WAG to an individual has become common usage. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it had entries, such as Cheryl Cole, Victoria Adams, etc etc, but these were removed for the duration of this discussion. As soon as some sort of consensus is reached, action will be taked (and these people will be added to the category, or to a differently-named category, or to no category at all, if you see what I mean). Tris2000 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Footballers' Wives and Girlfriends, also the related article, and repopulate. Whoever depopulated the category should be asked not to jump the gun in furture. I confirm tha the abbreviation is widely used in the UK, but I presume that it is not understood worldwide. Abbreviations are normally expanded in WP and this should be no exception, but keep existing form as a redirect. "And" is correct since the category is plural. The coverage of them in the tabloid press makes some notable, probably because of the spending power that the footballers' wages give them. I cannot see any other reason for most of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine with this rename. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - have renamed it accordingly and begun repopulating it again. WAGs no longer is a category. Tris2000 (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that WAGs are a nonentity and should never have been elevated to the attention they get, but the attention is there and they are certainly category-worthy. I should remind any non-UK people here that this is a very UK thing. Soccer wives in the US would not be worthy of a category, because they are normal people (on the whole), partly because US soccer players don't on the whole get paid $200,000 a week. In the UK, footballers tend to get spotted when they are very young, don't tend to get a rounded education, end up millionnaires when they're still teenagers, and a string of wannabe girlfriends - often of similar limited education - are lining up to get in the papers. Like it or lump it, that's what happens here in the UK. And yes, they will be on the front cover of all the gossip magazines, become Z list celebs which is what many of the aspire. It's a sad state of affairs, I don't deny it, but the WAGs wear the badge with pride. We even had a reality show called WAGs Boutique recently where WAGs had a go at managing a shop, or a special WAGs special on The Weakest Link with Anne Robinson, with all the contestants being WAGs and proud of it. I'm not condoning it, but WAGs is a category, like it or lump it. So the category stays but, because of cultural differences where WAGs means other things in other countries, it has been changed to Category:Footballers' Wives and Girlfriends as per suggestions here. If anyone has a serious problem with it there can be a separate request for removal later, but I do urge anyone to realise that there are cultural differences here. And please note that I say "Cultural" in the strictest ironical sense, because most WAGs wouldn't know what culture is if it slapped them in the face. Tris2000 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is extremely bad form to create the proposed target category and populate it, along with making the category under discussion a redirect to it, while this discussion is in progress. Since this category was never tagged for discussion in the first place, it is likely that any action taken under its auspices will be deemed invalid, so you've created a mess that some poor admin will have to clean up. You've also all but slapped those in disagreement with you in the face. I suggest that you empty the new category and tag it with {{db-author}} as a show of good faith and as an apology to your fellow editors. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, Otto. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for any bad form. In my defence, it's the first category I've ever created and, I think, it will be the last one, because I had no idea what a hassle it would cause! So I won't create any more categories. I do apologise to anyone I've upset here (don't worry, it won't happen again as I won't create another category again, I've been put off and it's not really worth the hassle). Can you tell me what a db-author is that I should put in the category, what hassle I have caused an admin (sorry if that's the case), and also what does this mean to the list? Thanks - sorry, as you can see, made a genuine mistake because I'm new to category creation and etiquette. Tris2000 (talk) 11:26, 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:Photographs by User:Staxringold[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) 19:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photographs by User:Staxringold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent here, here, here, and here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every individual user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need for a category to be made for each user's images. VegaDark (talk) 08:10, 6 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:Mongolian surnames[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) 19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mongolian surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There's no such thing as a "Mongolian surname", as Mongolian name correctly explains. One of the two entries is a clan name (an entirely different type of name), and the other isn't Mongolian, even if derived of a historical Mongolian name. The single-item list at the top seems to refer to Alan Goa, and has no obvious connection to either of the other two. I don't see how any of this makes much sense as a category. If more than one matching entry can actually be found, then a "List of surnames of Mongolian origin" might theoretically be an option. --Latebird (talk) 06:47, 6 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_6&oldid=1077602479"