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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 2 August 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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to plural. Man, there's a lot of Orienteering categories. These people have been biz-zay. Anyway, a small point, but this should be renamed, per master cat Category:Orienteering events and to make it clear that this is a category for different Fell running events. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. (I did remove it as a sub-category of Category:Marathons. Although some cover 42.195 km/26.22 miles, not all fell running events are marathons.) Location (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to get some informed opinion on this. Would you know if Fell running should be a subcat of Peak bagging? Because there had been two fell running articles included under Category:Peak bagging in the British Isles, also up for renaming or deletig, that I moved to this cat.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Might as well be snowballed, since it also meets the speedy criteria. GregorB (talk) 15:51, 4 August 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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. And keep up the good work! Debresser (talk) 22:15, 2 August 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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per WP:OC#OPINION, this is a bit of a pejorative and far too narrow of a categorization of a person's opinion. Return each person here to the parent Category:Conspiracy theorists if warranted. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#OPINION and probably WP:RECENTISM. While I happen to feel that people clinging to this issue deserve a pejorative or two, to date, we only have two subcats in Category:Conspiracy theorists, for UFOs and the Holocaust, and this is still far too local and hopefully short-lived an issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holocaust truthers and UFO truthers aren't the only categories. See below. Andjam (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I note that we don't have corresponding "Truthers" or "Moon Landing Hoaxers" (or whatever) categories. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because everyone in this category should be mentioned in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. (I first wrote "is mentioned" but somehow Pat Boone got deleted again, even though most editors in this discussion favored inclusion.) At this point, the set of notable people championing this cause is small enough that they all deserve inclusion in that article. Therefore, a reader who wants the complete list can look at that single article. That some Republican legislators made offhand pro-birther comments isn't important enough in their lives to be flagged with a category listing on their bio articles. JamesMLanetc 03:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Brothejr (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. It's a fairly new category. I just nominated it for deletion along similar lines, though as I say at the CfD, I think there may be good cause to retain in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pov-type category. Need less pov, if available. If not, forget it. Student7 (talk) 00:59, 3 August 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:List of research institutes in Hyderabad[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: Breaking research institutes down to the city level is over-categorization. If kept, then it need to be renamed as the members of the categories are not lists. Whpq (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I'm not too familiar with categories. I'm not dead set on deleting this. If creating a more general geographic division is possible, then merging it into there sounds like a reasonable course of action. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Category:Research institutes in Foo has plenty where Foo is a country, none that I can see where Foo is a state or city; but there is one for the San Francisco Bay area. US categories are generally broken down by state, but not this one. I don't myself see any objection to state subcats being created. Occuli (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Renamed to Category:Research institutes in Hyderabad. India is too large to have a single category, I suggest that further categorisation for Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore etc. Most of research institutes in Andhra Pradesh are concentrated in Hyderabad.Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, should obviously be renamed. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the state level - with 156 articles in the parent category, breaking down to the state level as is done in the US is reasonable. Not seeing the need for city-level categories. 156 articles divided across 28 states makes for reasonably sized categories. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Basti is a disambiguation page, and this category is for the district in Uttar Pradesh, where the article is at Basti district. The category name should conform to the article's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and I have added the 'People' category which suffers from the same difficulty. Occuli (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 2 August 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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry eponymous category that does not appear likely to expand. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the main article is already well-categorised, so that this eponymous category is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 2 August 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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorization by shared surname. Could perhaps be renamed Category:Festetics family, but with only two articles and an unexplained familial relationship between the two, probably not worth it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have several more than here at Festetics. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 4 August 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: In this successful nomination, we renamed all the "(artist) music videos and DVDs" categories to "video albums." So now we have two categories that do the same thing. The subcategories (except for Category:Music videos) should all clearly move over, in my opinion. I'm inclined to move all the articles over as well, with the goal of either deleting the "video albums" category if they are already in subcategory, or giving a new "(artist) video albums" category if they don't, in accordance with the songs and albums precedents.Mike Selinker (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – the subcats were mostly of the form (when renamed) 'Foo video albums' and clearly now belonged in Category:Video albums by artist, so I have moved them. The (many) articles probably need to be considered one by one - some are video albums, some might be music videos and others might be something else. Occuli (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable enough. I'll probably start going through them soon, and then there might not be a category left to talk about. Meantime, let's see if other people agree with this course.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Sorry, that's what I meant.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments - I think Mike would like a bot to move all the 400+ articles at the top level to Category:Video albums and then the few that are not video albums could be moved by hand elsewhere. There is however a need for a music subcat of Category:Videos and DVDs to collect together the music-related categories we have been discussing of late. Occuli (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine too. I think it's all part of a process to get the video albums into by-artist categories, and whatever helps is good. I'm not sure this is the right phrasing for the top-level category, though. It suggests that individual songs are OK in it, which is what I'm hoping to avoid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm all for dismantling huge, senseless categories. However, I'm not too keen on the term "video album"; there isn't a precise definition of what constitutes a video album. Even on wikipedia there is no "video album" article. Imperatore (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever being exposed to the term "video album" outside of Wikipedia, and can't say I'm all too keen on it either. It's a term that suggests to me, a collection of studio produced music videos, which holds very little interest to me personally. I am however, a collector of live concert videos, which I simply refer to as "concert videos", and would sort of like to see the categorisation(s) be named in the same distinct and descriptive manner. This is just my opinion of course... nothing I'd argue about, but would always be left thinking it was a bit odd calling a concert a "video album". -- WikHead (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly seen it elsewhere. Here's a Beyonce video album, for example. But the reason I picked "video album" for the last nomination on this point was that it (1) could cover albums full of individual videos, (2) could cover albums that contained one long video, such as a concert video, and (3) specifically did not allow for releases that contained one song. We may not have the perfect term here, but it's an okay term to me, and eminently changeable later on if we decide on something better. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I missed the previous discussion, but I think "video releases" is a less ambiguous and more inclusive term to use than "video albums". Despite that, I do support the move. --musicpvm (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Occuli and I are very slowly moving most of the contents of this category into their own "(artist) video albums" categories. So when that is done, there will only be subcategories left in this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 10 August 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.
