Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20[edit]

Category:LGBT Organizations in Mississippi[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:LGBT organizations in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This state subcategory of Category:LGBT organizations in the United States is not part of an established scheme of categorizing LGBT organizations by states of the United States. If such a scheme is not desired at this time, then this should be merged into Category:LGBT organizations in the United States; if such a scheme is desired, then rename to Category:LGBT organizations in Mississippi. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:LGBT Organizations in Mississippi to Category:LGBT organizations in Mississippi because organizations shouldn't be capitalized. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - to Category:LGBT organizations in the United States. The parent category is small and does not at this time require subdivision by this intersection. Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - to Category:LGBT organizations in the United States. Occuli (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- ony 75 organizations, and two in Mississippi, at this rate there aren't enough split to 50 states.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge; there's no really pressing need for by-state diffusion of a parent category that's this small. But make sure that the upmerge goes to both Category:LGBT organizations in the United States and Category:Organizations based in Mississippi. And actually, while I can't recall whether non-admins see the basic "there have been deleted edits at this title" notice or not, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT deleted the correctly capitalized Category:LGBT organizations in Mississippi as unwanted and unnecessary back in 2007. While the deleted edit history makes it appear as though I was the creator, I merely corrected the WP:NC error made by the original creator of this category — but I never thought it necessary in the first place, so I agreed fully with the deletion. But then it appears that the creator simply reverted it back to the original incorrect spelling without myself or the corrected cat's deleter noticing until now. Hmmmm. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was the one that created it as part of the organization for WikiProject Mississippi. Unfortunately, "Organizations" shouldn't have been capitalized and I didn't notice it until this discussion. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all editors see the deletion log when they click on the redlink (a nifty relatively new feature). But since it wasn't deleted after CfD, this one still needs to come here, and can stand in for both variants.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:10, 23 June 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:Hugo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorization for a media franchise. The amount of material relevant to the topic does not justify the existence of an eponymous category at this time and the five articles are adequately interlinked via in-text links. (Category creator not notified because: banned.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that fooled me - I thought this would be for the science fiction awards. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename also highly confusable with the Hugo Awards, which is much better known in the English world. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:07, 21 June 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:Security Guards murdered in terrorist incidents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly narrow creation; syntax issues to boot. Gilliam (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one article, which is on an incident, not a biography. If we did have a slew of biographies of these unfortunate people, I'd vote keep, but we don't. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization in the form of People by occupation by event, regardless of the number of articles in the category. Also, as Johnbod notes, the only article in the category is miscategorized. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization per Falcon. While being killed in a terrorist incident is tragic, unless the victim (regardless of occupation) is otherwise notable any article would likely be deleted per WP:BIO1E so the probability of this category's ever being populated with articles about actual people is very low. Otto4711 (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - if this is retained for some reason, it needs to be renamed to Category:Security guards killed in terrorist incidents. The capitalization needs to be fixed and "murder" is a legal term. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OC#SMALL; plus United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting discusses an event, not a person. APK (If You Wanna) 05:32, 21 June 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.

Film series[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. In digging through the nominated categories you find other navigation aids that do a better job. Everything from main articles, to templates, to dab pages. So for this subset I don't see a problem with deletion based on the strength of the arguments. I will add that this decision does not mean that everything in Category:Film series can or should be deleted. If anyone wants additional deletions, I suggest that they be nominated on a one by one basis for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per several recent CFDs for film series categories, consensus is emerging that for categories that consist of little or nothing but the film articles with possibly an article on the franchise, a category is not needed for navigational purposes. The film articles are interlinked and in many instances a template for the series exists. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as part of the well-defined structure Category:Film series. I would suggest an intermediate parent on the order of Category:Film series by title (or a variation thereof). That a category is "not needed" is an exceedingly poor rationalization for deletion, and the existence of navigation templates as an argument for deletion is in clear violation of WP:CLN. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Otto is correct. Categories with no navigational potential, already categorized elsewhere and templated and usually listed, too. At some point, there's simply no synergy needed. And look at the first one, which doesn't match its main article! When something is unnecessary, it doesn't matter that it has "well-defined structure". Be careful to upmerge in some cases. For example, the films in Category:Pirates of the Caribbean films need to be merged back into their parent Category:Pirates of the Caribbean.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How are these any different than TV episode categories? I can see an argument on the basis that there might be too few films in a category to justify the category, but I definitely don't want to endorse the principle described in the rationale.--05:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Selinker (talk • contribs)

We've deleted TV episode and character categories when there's little to no chance that there are a sufficient number of notable members. Category:Designing Women episodes is one I recall with only one article and no liely additional articles, and Category:Murder, She Wrote characters was deleted the other day. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difference is that there are more episodes in a tv series than films in a film series (except possibly Carry On...). I agree we should delete but keep as lists, as the information is useful, but not in category form. Pegship (talk) 19:01, 22 June 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:Characters by novel nationality[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: Upmerge to Category:Characters in written fiction which is the parent. It is clear that the name is a major problem. There are also strong cases being made to delete this category, or in one case to even delete the children. By upmerging we address the issue with the name and anyone who has an interest can work to develop a better solution. I'd suggest the talk page of the merge target. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters by novel nationality to Category:TO BE DETERMINED

Nominator's rationale: While inanimate objects can be said to belong to a nation, nationality is not a characteristic which can be appropriately attributed to such objects. I have been unable to think of a good alternative name, so any suggestions would be appreciated. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters in novels by country of first publication, although I'm unconvinced of the need for this layer of categorization between this and Category:Characters in written fiction. Category:Characters in novels was deleted back in 2006 but it's not terribly clear why. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That title would work, I think. The CfD for Category:Characters in novels is here; it looks like the category was deleted for having only one member. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per ~~Otto~~ Occuli below to Category:Characters in novels by nationality of author, unless a better name found. Personally I'm unconvinced by the need for many or most of these articles. Once we have so many, at least for Anglophone novels, this seems a reasonable way to categorize them. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify this comment please? You're not convinced of the need for these "articles"? Do you mean categories? But then you're saying it's a reasonable scheme? This seems contradictory. Otto4711 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean articles. Try not to tie yourself up in knots. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite knotless, thanks, but still not understanding what you're trying to say with your comment. Your comments still seem in direct opposition to each other. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, lets try Simple English: "Personally I'm unconvinced by the need for many or most of these articles. Once we have so many articles, at least for Anglophone novels, this seems a reasonable way to categorize them." Clearer now? Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Otto4711 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment these renames seem to be confused. The underlying categories are based on the nationality of the author of the novel, not the location of the action of the novel, nor the publication location, first or otherwise. Read the categories. Hmains (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Hmains seems to be correct - Category:Characters in American novels is a subcat of Category:American novels which I had assumed would refer to novels written by Americans. Which would suggest Category:Characters in novels by nationality of author; or Category:Characters in written fiction by nationality of author as the supercat is Category:Characters in written fiction. Occuli (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but there must be a snappier formula. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what? Occuli (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- and its children, too.... Rampant ternary over-categorization. We already have authors by nationality, and we already have characters by fictional nationality. Who cares whether the Chinese character in a French-language novel was written by a Belgian or a Canadian?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't OCAT - the underlying categories are such as Category:Vladimir Nabokov characters which is neither ternary nor rampant. No-one is suggesting 'Fooian characters in Booian-language novels written by Zooians', although CatScan might get somewhere with it. Occuli (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All this springs from the assertion that novels are inanimate objects. While on that face of it this may seem true, but actually a novel is not an object in the way a building is. It is an artistic work, essentially a set of words and sentences in a given (original) language. One that springs from the culture within which it is given birth. Specifically by the author, whose birth may be the driver for cultural content or there home of choice. Hence the slightly ambiguous name. Generally this is the "natural" name for these subcategories from standard or common usage. It may not be the most precise but few categories come close to the type of precision you appear to be after. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OCAT; if a writer is categorized under a certain nationality (i.e. Category:Russian writers), that should be sufficient to find the writer, his novels, and thus the characters. Pegship (talk) 19:04, 22 June 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:UK Provincial Gentlemen's Clubs[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:Traditional gentlemen's clubs in England. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Provincial Gentlemen's Clubs -> Category:UK provincial gentlemen's clubs

Nominator's rationale: mis-capitalised Ian Cairns (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the 3 listed are all in England. I would suggest Category:Traditional gentlemen's clubs in England (subcat of Category:Clubs and societies in England) with (renamed) subcat Category:Traditional gentlemen's clubs in London (77 articles) as a better way of subcatting Category:Traditional gentlemen's clubs (which could perhaps be further subcatted by country - I haven't checked where the others are). Occuli (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, er, or Occuli. I see Occuli's point, but at present another layer seems unnecessary. All the ones in the main cat seem to be American & I would support renaming this to say so, moving any non-US ones to a new head cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 Scottish ones, New Club and The Beggar's Benison, which certainly deserves its place. Should it not then be Category:Provincial traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United Kingdom, and is Edinburgh provincial these days? Occuli (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also re-organised the US ones per Johnbod. Occuli (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - I see my estimate was a tad out! Looking at the Beggar's Benison, and even after checking out the refs I can't quite shake the feeling there may be a hoax going on here, it seems never to have owned premises, which in my book makes it a dining club, & rather different. Maybe your suggestion is better - the Scots are bound to turn up eventually & set up their own category anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 21 June 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:Law in Oregon[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:Oregon law. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category attempts to draw a distinction that Category:Law in Oregon is for the general topic of law in Oregon, while Category:Oregon law is for specific "statutes, regulations and cases". However, this doesn't make much sense, and there aren't corresponding Category:Law in Pennsylvania, Category:Law in Georgia, etc. Superm401 - Talk 10:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between the 'concept' of the law and its application, so drawing a distinction is valid. However, I would expect that to apply at a higher level e.g. International Law, English Law, and US Law, but not at state level (nor at county level in England). Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Oregon law (and drop the distinction) per all the other states. Occuli (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, changing Delete to Merge (and I think the nomination was meant to be Merge?) Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Occuli -- The USA has at least 51 separate jurisdictions - USA itself, 50 states, and possibly a few more in territories etc (I do not know). Each has its separate law, and so needs a category for its law. In UK England (with Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a separate legal system. The law in Worcesterhire and in Suffolk are the same, so that there is no question of breaking down English law by counties, but there is by the three UK jurisdictions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Occuli. NB there are a hell of a lot more than 51 jurisdictions in the US. There's the nation, each state plus DC and the various territories, then subdivisions by geography and subject matter within the larger jurisdictions. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I created the category and fully support the merge, but you should run this change by the category owners, who seem to be WikiProject Law. Here's the background: User talk:Katr67#Law in Oregon Law. They're the ones who want to draw a distinction. Katr67 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 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:Relational Psychoanalysts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename Category:Relational Psychoanalysts -> Category:Relational psychoanalysts

Nominator's rationale: mis-capitalised Ian Cairns (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename as nom Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 20 June 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:20th century people[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. I wish there was more discussion here. But since the normal keepers did not comment on this parent nomination, it has not opposition and should be deleted. Maybe everyone is waiting for the discussions on the subcategories which will not be as easy to decide. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete

Nominator's rationale: the number of people with bios on wikip of these two centuries, and probably the 19th as well, is so huge that pages listed on sub-cat pages of these two pages, combined, merely duplicate Category:People and its subcat pages. I suggest we divide by century only to the 18th (possibly 19th). Do we need a Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:21st-century singers, and possibly 50 more for each occupation (when generalised), as well as Category:20th-century people by nationality and Category:21st-century people by nationality for nearly 200 countries? Will put up the present (approximately 40) subcats for nomination (for an upmerge) if discussion here suggests it is necessary 08:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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:Century old churches in the Philippines[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. While the idea of reorganizing the tree by century instead has merit, it appears to require added discussion around a change to the current organizational consensus. Even with the upmerge, the parent category won't be inordinately large, so creating the proposed categories doesn't require this to remain in place in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Arbitrary age inclusion criteria. Why 100 and not 50 or 200 years? Not a defining characteristic for these buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator's rationale. Suggest a Merge with Category:Churches in the Philippines Mayumashu (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Churches in the Philippines. Occuli (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and eliminate any of 1901-1909. The category should be changed to Pre-1901 churches in the Philippines. I say 1901, becasue that is when the American occupation was completed. This would make the category for churches of the Spanish colonial era. This therefore ceases to relate to an arbitrary period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize by century This would fit into the typical "architecture by century" and "Christian congregations established by century" trees, & also effectively accomodate PKs point above. There are only 19 now so the work is not massive. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we already have Category:Church buildings established in the 19th century etc and 'by century by religion' but not 'By century by country'. Category:Churches in England say is not subcatted by time period. Occuli (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, more's the pity! I thought we were debating Category:Church buildings established in the 19th century in the "Formerly papal congregations..." one, but perhaps not. The obvious ways to categorize church buildings are by denomination, location and date. At the moment we have trees for the first two, but by date only goes into the "architecture by date" tree where the majority of articles, from all over the world, end up in "by year" categories (often of questionable accuracy, and covering construction periods of several years), which is rather ridiculous. Carlaude's mass forced conversions of architectural categories to "congregations" ones has made the situation much worse. We should move to more sensible categories, like "churches by century and country". Here is an easy place to start. That's my view anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent category.- Gilliam (talk) 20:16, 20 June 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:Dutch admirals by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete the first and merge the rest. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization. There have only ever been about 70 Dutch admirals, there are unlikely to be that many more, and more importantly there is no precedent for this - there is Category:Admirals by century, no Category:Spanish admirals by century, Category:British admirals by century, Category:Portuguese admirals by century, Category:American admirals by century, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge 16th, 17th, (not 18th) 19th and 20th centurues as nom. The Admirals target for 18th century should be Category:Admirals of the navy of the Dutch Republic, as the republic lasted until the 1790s. Delete Category:Dutch admirals by century which is only a parent to the other five. Category:Dutch admirals will need a headnote that Admirals before the 1790s should be categorised in Category:Admirals of the navy of the Dutch Republic, which will presumably (if not already) be a subcategory of the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per PK. sounds sensible. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 20 June 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:Songs about goats[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too obscure of a theme to be meaningful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as silly stuff. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization on the basis of a non-defining or trivial characteristic. As defined ("songs about goats, songs which refer to goats, and for songs with goat in the title"), this category would include any song with the word "goat" in it; if we exclude trivial mentions of goats, then we run into the problem of determining at what point a song stops just referring to goats and becomes about goats. A category for songs which reliable sources have identified as being about goats is less problematic (it would still technically be "Category:Songs which at least one source has identified as being about goats"), but this is not that category. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ho, de-le-oh delete-oh - suffers the same problems that many "stuff about a thing" categories suffer, as elucidated by Falcon. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daftify, emphasis on the "D". Grutness...wha? 23:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it would be difficult to deny Cyfri'r Geifr a place in this category (the Welsh do seem to take their caprinae very seriously). Occuli (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is also the classic Hebrew-language song Yesh Lanu Tayish that is undoubtedly about a goat, but I don't see songs by animal species as a defining characteristic or a means used by those studying music to group songs. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; probably only missed by Aberforth Dumbledore. Pegship (talk) 19:06, 22 June 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:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Dual License[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As of June 15, all current and past contributions are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, and most are dual-licensed (with GFDL). Consequently, this category no longer describes a distinct, useful subset of edits. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:36, 20 June 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:Playstation Portable-only 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Playstation Portable-only games to Category:PlayStation Portable-only games

Nominator's rationale: The current title is incorrect - PlayStation is spelled in CamelCase. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:09, 24 June 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.