Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[edit]

Category:The Jackson 5 members[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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Jackson 5 members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classic case of WP:OC#SMALL. The Michael Jackson article is of course high-traffic at the moment, but does not appear to be served in any useful manner by this categorization. (Indeed, the Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor category might have been even more useful than this one, as there is no corresponding Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor article from which to obtain the same set of information. But there is, of course, a The Jackson 5.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:15, 4 July 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:Bohemian Club members[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: Listify and Delete. --Xdamrtalk 22:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bohemian Club members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by membership in private club. The Bohemian Club is indisputably notable, but being a member of it is not defining. I browsed through the first twenty articles in the category alphabetically, and only two even mentioned the subject's membership. This category was previously deleted in late 2006 because its contents were based only on a single unreliable source; see discussion here. That problem does not appear to have been remedied given the failure of most included articles to even mention the membership, and Bohemian Club does not contain the list either; instead, that article says that the membership lists are private. Postdlf (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were filled out completely, there would be 2700 current members and probably over 10,000 past members in that article. Pretty huge list! Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A defining characteristic backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My request that Binksternet provide sources for the categorization was not intended as an endorsement of the category. On the contrary, it was meant to ensure that a potentially controversial category was applied to BLPs in a responsible manner. The Bohemian Grove is the center of many fringe theories, and care is needed to make sure we are only using reliable sources and avoiding sensationalism. As for the important issue of whether it is a defining characteristic, that may apply to some members and not to others. There may be some people, like Bret Harte's associates, who gained success through membership. For others, like Colin Powell, it may be nothing more than an occasional weekend event with little effect on his career or life. If the category is kept I simply suggest that it be used with care and be fully sourced. If editors of particualr biographies agree that it is unimportant to their subject it should be removed on a case-by-case basis regardless of the sourcing issue.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely fair; if any one article's editors formed a consensus to delete the category from that biography page, I would respect that. One comment, though: the club membership isn't only important (beneficial) or unimportant (neutral), it can also be negatively important in the way of a political liability, like maybe for people such as Colin Powell who would rather not have the connection become a hotly-debated topic. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but any of those would require a source which specifically discusses the effects of their membership, not just a generic entry in a list of members.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the above discussion. Just unworkable, and not really defining anyway. I also agree with Peterkingiron that starting with a cited list would be preferable here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your statement "not really defining," the article on the Chicago Club has a little chart based on research by Domhoff showing how the Bohemian Club is one of the most connected clubs in the USA. The Bohemian Club ranks eleventh. I think any club on that list could be said to be "defining" of a man's career. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's defining for Ronald Reagan? What do people think about when they think of Ronald Reagan? I would guess: "U.S. president", "actor", "governor of California", "Iran–Contra", (maybe) "anti-Communist", etc. But Bohemian Club member? I don't think so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your example, only the things "people think about when they think of" someone can be a category. What about the things that are important to a career, but aren't immediately apparent to the public? How would we ever know what effect Reagan's 1967 hob-nobbing with Richard Nixon, Glenn Seaborg and the boys at the Owls Nest Camp had on his 1979–1980 presidential campaign? It could have had quite a lot of influence, or none, but Domhoff calculates that it was critically important for the majority of members. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was merely an illustration of why this is probably not defining for individuals. I understand the attraction of saving a category you created, but really, you're protesting too much (in the Shakespearean sense, that is). Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding yours and Peterkingiron's comments that it would be better to start with a list (article), if such a list existed, would that change your opinion of this category? Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not defining, and basically a fraternity or club, and we have usually gotten rid of those; this little different than those. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial basis for categorization. Similar category deleted a few years ago. Otto4711 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deciding a club member discussion today because of a past decision to delete a Grove attendees category? You must agree that attendees would have significantly less of a beneficial aura cast over them, if it existed, than full members. That difference is enough, says Domhoff, to make the connection an important one. I, too, would have deleted an attendees category. The Category:Bilderberg Attendees should be similarly examined, and possibly deleted. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not base my decision entirely on the previous category. I noted a previous discussion and specifically noted that it was similar and not identical. Otto4711 (talk) 06:16, 15 July 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:Wreckers[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 to Category:Wreckers (Transformers). --Xdamrtalk 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wreckers to Category:Wreckers (Transformers)
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguity; see Wreckers. Its article is Wreckers (Transformers). Occuli (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought character-team categories in comics are to be deleted? 70.29.208.69 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any reason this needs to be moved then? Are there any OTHER group out there called that Wreckers that would prompt the need for someone else to need this name? Mathewignash (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to disambiguate per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the anon is correct that in general, we don't categorize fictional characters on the basis of their membership in super-teams, because characters often join any number of such teams which can lead to category clutter. However, this seems somehow more akin to a fictional species or perhaps fictional occupation. To the best of my very limited knowledge, Transformers don't switch from being one sub-type to another sub-type. So I lean toward keep and rename but if there are credible arguments that this is closer to a team than a species or occupation I could be persuaded to change my stance. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC the argument was that there were GLs who were not members of the GL Corps so keeping as an occupation wasn't accurate. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 5 July 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:Female film directors[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: no consensus. There were arguments in support of both, neither side significantly stronger than the other. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Female film directors to Category:Women film directors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the parent category and the only sub category. A previous related discussion seems to be somewhat side tracked by the fact that Category:Women by occupation contains both women and female. So when it may be clear that one form should be preferred, we can't reach a consensus. In this case, I think it is clear that women is the best choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Women film directors which I believe to be the intention of the nom. Occuli (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wherever possible, I prefer Women to Female in these categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this one. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I prefer "female" over "women" in all cases. Try "Men film directors"... doesn't that make you giggle? Debresser (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- (1) Nothing wrong with the current name; (2) current name includes directors who are "girls" -- ie females who haven't grown up yet; (3) what about directors who underwent transsexual surgery? Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being female doesn't make a difference for film directors. Do they directly uniformly within the group or differenlty from men? How so, we don't have an article Women film directors (which redirects to women's cinema which is an unreferenced essay followed by a list of films in which women played major roles behind the camera) nor could one reasonably be written; OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per everything in Category:Women by occupation. I wonder, though, why there's no Category:Male film directors. Jafeluv (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because per WP:CATGRS the existence of a category for one sex doesn't automatically require the existence of a category for the other. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reason to deal this one category at a time. let's solve this one way or the other (I, for one, have no strong feelings either way at this point) and stop wasting time with trying to solve this on a piecemeal basis. Alansohn (talk) 02:50, 12 July 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:Reforestation and Category:Deforestation[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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reforestation & Category:Deforestation
Nominator's rationale:Merge into Category:Environmental issues with forests. In line with WP:OC#OVERLAPPING AND WP:OC#SMALL. Horribly redundant- a few pages are in all three categories. Minnecologies (talk) 20:40, 4 July 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:The Wreckers[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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Wreckers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overly small category. They only had two albums, three songs (only two of which have articles), two members, and have since broken up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Strong Delete. I agree with the rationale given that the category will not experience any growth in the near future. May I suggest that a discussion to delete the Template:The Wreckers also be opened. Maybe it is better to migrate its contents to each singers template rather than keep that one.--23prootie (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This category will have 7 members (2 albums, 2 songs, 2 band members, 1 template), which I find enough for a (small) category. I would delete all subcategories though, as overcategorisation, and have all 7 in this main category. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small category with no growth potential. Eponymous categories aren't needed for this amount of material, especially since there's a template. Otto4711 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711, providing the template will not be nominated for deletion (so I don't strike my previous opinion). Debresser (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template won't be deleted. There seems to be a loose precedent that templates should at least have five or six entries, which {{The Wreckers}} does. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un-speedy-tagged. Others have edited the category, and besides there is a cfd going on. Occuli (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This category has 7 members (2 albums, 2 songs, 2 band members, 1 template), enough for a (small) category (as Debresser said); and there are 3 subcats, all of which are part of larger schemes. Occuli (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The parent productively organizes the multiple subcategories. The false choice between template and category is in direct conflict with WP:CLN and any vote cast on this basis should be ignored. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of having an eponymous category which holds only categories? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN does not, despite your insistence to the contrary, mandate that categories and templates must co-exist. A plain reading by non-zealots clearly establishes that there are instances when one form is superior to another for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 4 sub-categories wit one for images. + 1 template.--23prootie (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Delete per TenPoundHammer, for a duo that has broken up and will probably not get back together I don't see why we need this. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TenPoundHammer/Caldorwards CloversMallRat (talk) 03:33, 8 July 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:Sports by city[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sports by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Someone has previously tagged this for merging into Category:Sports in the United States by city (and then removed the tag) but I don't see that we need this (empty) ambiguous, duplicate category at all ! thisisace (talk) 18:43, 4 July 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:Famous explosions[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Famous explosions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The subjective determination that some explosions are more famous than others basically makes this an WP:OCAT — how on earth would we quantify how much fame an explosion has, or how much it needs to have achieved in order to earn the distinction of being called famous? And anyway, CFD has a longstanding rule against category names that single out topics as "famous". Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as nom. thisisace (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Breaches WP:NPOV; very subjective. — Σxplicit 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere, probably Category:Explosions. In the context of WP, "famous" can be treated as synonymous with notable. NN explosions will not have articles. However, I note from an item below, that explosions are split by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only 20th & 21st, which none of these are. But there is a by country scheme. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Explosions by country. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category, but add the articles to Category:Explosions by country. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument for deletion is dead wrong. The category would be perfectly viable if the word "Famous" was removed, which would address any all issues raised by the nomination, which should have been a rename. Explosions with articles are "famous", ones without are not. The relevant issues are that there is a well-defined structure Category:Explosions by country (in addition to the unstructured categories for explosion by century) that already tracks explosions ("famous" or otherwise), as well as the fact that the entries in the category under discussion are for places where explosions occurred, not for individual explosions themselves. Thus, there is no need to recategorize these entries after deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Explosions already exists, with the result that "famous explosions" is being structured as a subset of "all explosions". Accordingly, your rationale for claiming that "the argument for deletion is dead wrong" simply doesn't make any sense, because the alternative that you're suggesting I should have pursued instead already exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fame is subjective. Articles should be shifted per Debresser/Johnbod. Orderinchaos 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I would however, support the creation of categories for both accidental and controlled explosions, as this is an important factor which Category:Explosions by country neglects to address. - WikHead (talk) 16:57, 7 July 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.

NBA seasons[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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 21:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:2008–09 NBA season to Category:2008-09 NBA season
Category:2009–10 NBA season to Category:2009-10 NBA season
Category:2007–08 NBA season to Category:2007-08 NBA season
Category:2006–07 NBA season to Category:2006-07 NBA season
Category:2005–06 NBA season to Category:2005-06 NBA season
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another out of process rename to use non standard characters. Revert back to the old names that can be entered from a keyboard. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename all to expand "NBA" to "National Basketball Association" since NBA is ambiguous. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. I, personally, think "NBA season" is not ambiguous, but we do have a guideline to avoid abbreviations in cateogries, so rename to "National Basketball Association" while leaving a redirect for the popular use of "NBA". Debresser (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Calling respect of WP:DASH "out of process" only helps demonstrate how fundamentally messed up the wacky world of CfD truly is. We have a rather clear guideline, established by the community as a whole, and for no legitimate reason we decide that community policy just don't apply to us at CfD. I don't like the guideline any more than any else here, but this is pointless disruption at its worst. As to spelling out NBA, the category titles are exact matches for the article titles, and there is no need to expand anything here. A small measure of consistency, adhering to guidelines and article titles set by a community as a whole would be far more productive than trying to manufacture needless naming conflicts. Alansohn (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge – keep all the ones of the form Category:2008–09 NBA season. A glance at its contents will reveal that all the articles and all the templates use NBA and en-dash. (I don't believe there has ever been a consensus one way or the other in cfds about en-dash or obscure symbols in category names. No-one has explained why the expedient of copying and pasting is unduly burdensome – WP:DASH applies within the article, extending this to the article name seems a logical step, and extending this to the category name via eg {{catmore}} another logical step.) Occuli (talk) 11:28, 6 July 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:English people of Cuban descent[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: KEEP. Postdlf (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English people of Cuban descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The convention in the appropriate parent category Category:British people is Category:British people of Cuban descent (which already exists.) Category:English people does not have ethnic background subdivisions like the British one. thisisace (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Nevertheless, I thought the convention was that the "descent" categories were not split between the 4 British home countries. It seems that I am wrong, but should they not all be merged inot the equivalent British ones? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Descent is neither race nor ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 8 July 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:Lines of Tsukuba Express[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lines of Tsukuba Express to Category:Stations of Tsukuba Express
Nominator's rationale: Rename: The category actually lists the stations of the railway, not lines. The Tsukuba Express has only one line so that the category for lines is not necessary, thus I propose this renaming. Sushiya (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious agree Debresser (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to more accurately reflect content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 5 July 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:Articles containing Slovenian language text[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Articles containing Slovenian language text to Category:Articles containing Slovene language text
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring the name of category in the line with the name of the Slovene language article that has been thoroughly discussed (see its corresponding talk page). Eleassar my talk 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Aren't these pages populated into this category by the syntax in Template:Lang-sl? If so, the template needs to be updated. Lugnuts (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template already uses "Slovene". Debresser (talk) 10:57, 5 July 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:Explosions in Iraq[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: Keep, part of wider scheme. --Xdamrtalk 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Explosions in Iraq to Category:Explosions and Category:Disasters in Iraq
Category:Explosions in Argentina to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Argentina
Category:Explosions in Australia to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Australia
Category:Explosions in Bulgaria to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Bulgaria
Category:Explosions in Cameroon to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Cameroon
Category:Explosions in China to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in China
Category:Explosions in Cuba to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Cuba
Category:Explosions in Denmark to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Denmark
Category:Explosions in France to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in France
Category:Explosions in Ireland to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Ireland
Category:Explosions in Mexico to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Mexico
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Found as an empty category. In looking at the contents of Category:Explosions it appears to include a series of single entry subcategories adding an extra level of navigation. Suggest upmerging all to Category:Explosions and Category:Disasters in Foo. I'll nominate the series if there appears to be support for the upmerge concept. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another option, which may be preferred, would be to upmege as appropriate to Category:20th-century explosions or Category:21st-century explosions instead of Category:Explosions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iraq as empty, yes. But given that the sibling categories for other types of disasters are permitted subdivision by country, why exactly would we want explosions to be handled differently than the others? Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too small as single entry categories, so OCAT. My guess is that Iraq had one and someone upmerged it somewhere trying to help. So if most, if not all, of the others only have one entry, then we don't need this level of categorization. If someone wants, these could also be upmerged to the disasters in country category by year if one exists. If we keep the others, then we probably need to find out what was removed from here and add it back rather then deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – either we have the subcat scheme Category:Explosions by country, in which case small categories are not OCAT, or we abandon it and just have a few top-level subcats such as Category:Explosions in the United States (which has plenty of articles, particularly in its subcats). At present there are no articles about particular explosions at the top level of Category:Explosions. Occuli (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment by location of event and by time of event subcats are very different. Both are useful here and should be kept and populated: there is no way that Category:Explosions in the United States and several others with so many entries should just disappear: they are needed in the country's cat tree to fully describe events in the country. Having said that, I don't know what to do about the country subcats with only 1 or 2 explosions. Just leaving them in their century category does not seem particularly helpful, so where might they go? A category named 'Explosions not yet categorized by country'? Hmains (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless empty like Iraq, as part of a wider scheme, per Occuli. See also "famous explosions" above. And yes, the century categories should be added where necessary, per Hmains. That is no reason to merge these ones. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I found the one removed from the Iraq category, so all of these now have at least 1 article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one article in the Iraq category is about a military base, not an explosion... –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All a clearly defining characteristic that is justifiably organized by country. Explosions are not just events that occur in the United States, and we should be organizing by country to usefully navigate through these articles. Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 5 July 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:9/12 Candidates[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. Postdlf (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:9/12 Candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT of political candidates (themselves not necessarily guaranteed to meet WP:POLITICIAN) by shared opinion. The opinion they share is itself the subject of a related AFD which it looks less than likely to survive, for that matter. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 9/12 appears to be a politcal movement with 660,000 members. If that is true it would certainly be notable. I have not heard of it, but an the wong side of the pond. Nevertheless, the continued existence of the category must stand or fall with the related AFD on the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization based on opinion or belief. Similar to various categories for signers of certain political manifestos or the one about scientists who don't believe in evolution. Regardless of how the AFD closes the category should still be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Peterkingiron "the continued existence of the category must stand or fall with the related AFD on the article". Debresser (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OCAT per political belief; category based on a non-notable neologism from Glen Beck and his adherents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shawn above - MPs/congressmen are members of all sorts of things but most of them are not defining characteristics. Orderinchaos 16:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OCAT and because 9/12 Candidate was deleted. APK coffee talk 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and, as previously pointed out, the related article was deleted.--JayJasper (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a speedy g8 tag on the category, on that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My speedy has been declined in favour of the outcome of this discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not found reliable sources to show that this is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 12 July 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:Types of economics[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 to Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology. --Xdamrtalk 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Types of economics to Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I do not understand the purpose of keeping this as a separate category. Most of these article belong in Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology, and a few of them really don't belong in an economics category at all. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & check adequately categorized elsewhere, or Merge about 50%. I'd say most articles here are neither "Types of economics" or "Schools of economic thought and methodology", but some may need additional categorizing. There are some other odd categories in the ones I looked at. User:Skipsievert seems have added many of these. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 8 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_4&oldid=1144513420"