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:Merge. Officially, there is no such thing as an "Ambassador" to the United Nations. They are all officially "Permanent Representatives". Colloquially, "Ambassador" is used in sources from some countries (especially the U.S.) and is also commonly used in Wikipedia. Right now there are categories that use both names; we only need one of the two, since they refer to exactly the same thing. I favour using the official term, but reverse merging is also an option, and I would support whichever is the consensus choice (I've added a tag for both, just to be sure). The article for current PRs is List of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations. Depending on what results from this discussion, I will nominate the "by country" subcategories for renaming to a standard naming format. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, leave a redirect, and endorse renaming subcategories without further discussion. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 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.
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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Majority of the song entries were only cowritten as part of a member of a group/band. Using 'written by' on its own falsely implies sole creditation. neon whitetalk 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Just noticed that Category:Paramore songs already exists so i think deletion should be also be considered. --neon whitetalk 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's not the same thing. That category just lists their songs. Plenty of other artists have a category for songs they've co-written. It doesn't have to be written entirely by the soul individual. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Songs written by x" implies co-writing, at least here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect if you dictate that somoene has written a song it means they wrote it only or you would logically say 'co-written' instead. It's either/or, someone either wrote it or co-wrote, you cannot have written and co-written something at the same time. It's the same as owned and co-owned, if you say you own something you are claiming it as your possession only or you would correctly say "i co-own it with x". Saying 'we both own it' is grammatically incorrect. Regardless all of these songs were written jointly by members of the band and having a category for a single one of a group of cowriters is unecessaty not to mention redundant to Category:Paramore songs, it makes no sense at all especially when there is so few entries anyway. Do we need a category for every single member of any group that has contributed a writing credit to aa song? --neon whitetalk 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up at a higher level if you have issues with the grammar. Starting with one individual category is not the way to go. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ten Pound HammerDebresser (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator of the category, as well as per TenPoundHammer. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be no confusion here in that "written by" means "was a part of the writing process as an individual or group and received credit for writing the song". Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 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.
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 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Another out of process empty. Appears to have contained a single article which has been restored for this discussion. Not sure if this should be kept or deleted since it is a part of a series (see Category:2007 in Turkmenistan). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is indeed part of a series, which happens to have several red links. With a single article and with 2006 already finished, it will hardly get any expansion at all. --LoЯd۞pεth 18:23, 9 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.
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 all. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination to affirm the out of process move. In looking at the moved articles some of these are listed as rap, others as hip hop and others as both. I have no idea what the best solution is here for the small category that this was merged into. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 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.
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:Merge. This is a really small category with video games from the Disney Princess franchise, which is more than just fictional characters. Other merchandise by Disney Princess such as films or songs are in the main category (which is also quite small) instead of a "Category:Disney Princess songs" or "Category:Disney Princess films". --LoЯd۞pεth 19:48, 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.
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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have both "Wikipedia official policy" and "Wikipedia global policy" as categories, which seems to be a distinction codified nowhere else in Wikipedia. I propose merging both of them into "Wikipedia policy" to clarify things. Category:Wikipedia policy would then be a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of each pair is a redirect that seems useful. Why change them? Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everything in Category:Wikipedia global policy is also in Category:Wikipedia official policy, I just checked (and I've checked before), so there really isn't anything to merge. We're just talking about getting rid of the redundant cat (and leaving a redirect behind, I guess). - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anyone can point out to me a single Wikipedia policy that is unofficial, I support a merge of these into Category:Wikipedia policy per nom, with that category becoming a subcat of Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would suggest, however, that either one or the other of those remaining categories be changes so that the policy/ies name is uniform - preferably changing the parent to Category:Wikipedia policy and guidelines, since it covers policy in general as well as specific policies. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse merge I created the "official policy" and "semi-policy" categories with tongue in cheek since, at that time, there was certainly nothing official about any of the policies. The officious-sounding name was intended to draw attention to the fact that our process, such as it was, for creating, amending, enforcing, and retiring policy was either nonexistent or broken. Since more recently arriving Wikipedians may not realize that this was an attempt at humor, the category should be merged. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the basic idea. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 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:Proposed Decade in which Moses leads the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt[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 deleted as G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty & per above, but don't try to recreate with a different name. It seems from edits like this that the only proposed content is whatever the decade is - this is not suitable subject for a category at all. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i just thought it's be useful to have, as it is common in at least a few decades. then i realized the name was entirely inappropriate; i still don't know what the proper name would be, which is why i didn't create the new category. I do apoligize if i offended anyone. Bud0011 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The date of the Exodus would be appropriate (and probably is) the subject of an article, but the subject is far too narrow for a category: how is to contain more than a single article? It looks as if it was being used to tag articles on decades. This is not an appropriate use for categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is it not appropriate? Bud0011 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articlify (articulate?) as Date of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. Makes far more sense to have an article detailing all the proposed dates and the reasons/theories why they have been proposed than it does to simply list all the proposed decades in a category with no explanation. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 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:Articles which may be unencyclopedic[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♥♦♣ ♠ 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Reading the documentation at Template:Unencyclopedic and reviewing some examples in the category, it became clear that the tag is applied when some of the content in an article or section is suspect, which is very different than saying the article itself might be unencylopedic. For example, Carlsbad,_California is tagged, but it's a well-established city that warrants having an article, just one of the sections has some possibly excessive material on neighborhoods within. Hopefully I'm not mincing words here, just trying to help seperate articles out that might not warrant existence from those just needing editing help. Cander0000 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. seems reasonable, though I hear the occasional reader takes such tags as permission. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the old name seems to tell us that the article is delete worthy and should be rebuilt from scratch. The new one suggests that the offending material can be revised/removed trough normal editing.--Lenticel(talk) 00:46, 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.
Category:Film based Marvel Comics video games[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♥♦♣ ♠ 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - current name is awkward. The rename matches the construction of the parents and siblings. Otto4711 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly describe the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 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.
