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 14:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alansohn brings up a good point, and while we're here let's try to tackle it. I think that "teachings" is better reflected in "belief and doctrine"; "views" should probably be more expansive including those areas that are not strictly belief or doctrine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (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 move the articles. If anyone wants to recreate this in order to use it as a parent category for non-people articles, feel free. Kbdank71 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Technical nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- They cover the same subject. "Picts" would be acceptable, but I think we usually have "people" categories now. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/recreate/cleanup For the most part, the noun form is used as a main category for extinct, stateless, or other peoples whose name is not intrinsically tied to a discrete political entity, while individuals are grouped in Fooian people. Thus, one would expect to find articles like Kingdom of Cait and Battle of Dunnichen, in Category:Picts, not Category:Pictish culture— these articles are not about cultural topics. Perhaps the creators of Category:Pictish people followed the convention of Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe, whereas the creators of Category:Picts followed the example of the parent Category:Celts, in which the Fooian culture is used as the main category and Fooians for individuals.-choster (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be easier to merge and then re-create. No one has denied the need for a parent category for Picts.-choster (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of Oppose per Choster & Carlos - all the current articles are bios which should be in Category:Pictish people, but we should have a parent Category:Picts (or possibly Category:Pict) for the battles etc. How this is accomplished (merge or move the current contents) I'm not fussed. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2009 (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:FM 87.7 MHz Stations with video signal[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: Delete Wikipedia does not categorize broadcasters by frequency, nor does it categorize them by signal content, so this seems like an overly narrow category. If this intersection is significant, I propose that the category be listified prior to deletion. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2009 (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 An eponymous category for a book, the only page in this category is an article about the author. This is an inversion of Wikipedia's categorization scheme, which generally categorize books by author, not the other way around. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author has produced a number of books (all redlinked in his article), of which this is one. In my view his article has far too many red-links, and they ought to be delinked. This is a category about a book that does not even have an article on it! It connot survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2009 (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:People associated with religion or philosophy[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: Delete Unnecessary level of categorization Editor2020 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, as that seems to be the term for what I'm trying to accomplish. (Trying to learn the lingo.)--Editor2020 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Stepheng3. Cgingold (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (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 An unparented category created for a single article, this category provides no navigational assistance to encyclopedia users. Stepheng3 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete An unparented category created for a single article, this category provides no navigational assistance to encyclopedia users. Stepheng3 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless populated and parented during FCFD period. The one article (the same one in each case) in it is itself an orphan. It has several other categories, and appears to be well-researched. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I have joined these two nominations together since they raise precisely the same issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No help in navigating among the one article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (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 -- This is as bad as "Current" categories, whcih we do not have because they will go out of date. The list should be enough, together with categorisation as congressmen. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per standard against "current" categories which is what this amounts to and in favor of the list. Otto4711 (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "current" category per convention and precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (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 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Cing and rename. Consistency is not a strong argument here because one could just as well argue consistency with Category:Video game developers. However, all the articles except for Cing are about games, so a game category seems much more useful than a category for the company in general. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2009 (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 - small category with no likelihood of expansion. The articles are all interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These TV series categories should not exist. All the necessary infomation is usually incorporated in a template, which provides a simpler navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Petekingiron and precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (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:Grande Croix of the Légion d'honneur[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:speedy delete per creator request. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete nom by creator, misspelling emerson7 17:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it indeed a misspelling, Speedy delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grande → Grand. extant category with correct spelling. --emerson7 22:19, 12 January 2009 (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 Narrow category, low likelihood of expansion Editor2020 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or REname -- This is a significant Middle Eastern Christian denomination; so I do not see why it should not exist. I suspect however that we describe its members as Assyrians, not as Nestorians, which is a description only used by outsiders. Suggest Category:Former Assyrian Christians . Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' A somewhat POV category, as he appears to have been trying to reunite his "former" church with the RCC, like later Greek Orthodox leaders, but was not followed by other leaders. It's not clear how he viewed his position vis-a-vis the Assyrian Church. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2009 (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: Match standard usage Editor2020 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency with other lists. Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.-choster (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2009 (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: Match standard usage Editor2020 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency with other lists. Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; present grammatical form also limits contents to lists about people who are Buddhist.-choster (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2009 (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:speedy delete as apparent test page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty category created as part of an editing test. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't add anything to nom: a new user is testing the system heavily.--Cerejota (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2009 (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:Buildings attacked in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks[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: Same reason as the previous ones: main article name changed. Also link to main article. Cerejota (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This seems a bit too fine-grained to justify a category, imo. It might be better to convert it to a navbox. Cgingold (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a navbox for the entire series, that includes the sites. If others do not oppose deletion, neither would I, but please let the talk page over at the main article know. --Cerejota (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion and the fact that all articles now have the template included. I do wonder why several of the articles in the category are not listed in the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2009 (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:People of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks[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 per amended nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article changed. We should also add a "main article is" template with 2008 Mumbai attacks. Cerejota (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed the nom.--Cerejota (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference: It's generally best to use "strike-thru text" to indicate where you've amended what you wrote, so other folks who come along can see what transpired. Some people might be a bit puzzled by my comment, but it's pretty minor in this case, so I'm not really concerned about it. Cgingold (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (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: Article name changed, we should also change the "main article" as it points to a redirect. Cerejota (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hopefully this name will be stable. Cgingold (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen a solidier, snowball consensus ever ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to conform to the rest of the articles on the incident. SBC-YPR (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2009 (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.
Keep as capable of expansion, but nomination should be to upmerge, not delete - as for most of the following noms. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I expect there are other items to be added one day; alternatively upmerge, but keep for preference. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (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.
Keep/upmerge Size doesn't matter, besides, do we have crystal balls (mine are adamantium!) ;) Although up-merge might be OK. --Cerejota (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parent cats. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge note: one item categories with their one item being a one-liner sourced to its own website is probably OVERCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is there a technological way to prevent the creation of partial category strings, such that no category that begins with "[[Category:Multiracial" can be created? Otto4711 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could probably be a better name for the category. As it stands it could be interpreted as being for articles about actual sexual affairs that involve people of different races. Otto4711 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed – a very bizarre collection of articles. (It is the only other category beginning "[[Category:Multiracial" and seems to me much worse than the deleted ones.) Occuli (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we somehow had the technology to block it, I'm sure people would just move on to "[[Category:Multi-racial ..." or "[[Category:Multiethnic ..." or some other variety ... . Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Those concerned should be categorised according to their ethnic descents (assuming that their ethnicity is a notable characteristic), not as multracial. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per past discussion, categories by nationality is overcategorization. DiverseMentality 07:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent. this is OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2009 (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 Narrow, with low likelihood of expansion. Editor2020 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Merge to Category:Deism. "Texts", as it is used in the current Wikipedia categorization scheme, has the meaning of Category:Religious texts, not just books.--Editor2020 (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Deism is a legitimate theological position (with which I profoundly disagree). I have no idea how many texts relating to it there may be, but I do not think that the alternatvie of upmerging would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom - again, 1 article category but here the label is retrospective. What is a Deist text? A text upon which Deists rely for their faith/theological position? One written by a Deist? One that some later literary critic (including any WP editor) has determined fits the bill? This book has something to do with Deism - I doubt that it's considered a "sacred text" which is how we apparently use "texts" (I guess "scripture" would be too POV for some), unlike the Book of Mormon, Koran, or Bible, so upmerge. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (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.
Done Changed the nom.--Cerejota (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
