Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

November 16[edit]

Subcategories of Category:River class frigates[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:
--Xdamrtalk 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Australian River class frigates to Category:River class frigates of the Royal Australian Navy
Category:Canadian River class frigates to Category:River class frigates of the Royal Canadian Navy
Nominator's rationale: Rename The proposed category names more accurately reflect the nature of the categories. The proposed naming style mirrors the style in use for other multi-navy ship classes, like Category:Flower class corvettes (see 5 June 2009 CfD). As it is currently, the Canadian category is especially problematic since there were (a) ships that were built in Canada that didn't serve in the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), (b) ships that served in the RCN but were built in the UK, and (c) ships that were both built in Canada and served in the RCN. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:28, 16 November 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:Traditional/folk music world-wide[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. --Xdamrtalk 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename. We shouldn't have a slash in a category name like this, and this category seems to be better covered by other categories. If kept, give a better name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Merge: Do not delete -- This is an attempt to provide a category for folk music by nationality, but on a wider basis than a purely natioanl one. We do not usually categorise by continent, but the articles are mostly lists on a wider basis than single countries. I see two possibilities: merge with Category:Folk music by nationality (currently its subcategory) or move subcategories to Category:Folk music, and place the articles in a new Category:Lists of folk music traditions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it a better name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire people trying to do good things on Wikipedia, but this name is awkward. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if deletion is on the table, notification should be given on the talk page of all categories and pages that are in this category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems redundant to Category:Folk music. "World wide" seems to be redundant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am responsible for the category and its name: I apologise for its evident unweildiness and for failing to complete a daunting task to date. Check my record: I have re-categorised and edited hundreds of music pages. There's a reason for the name; categorisation has been made difficult by different use of different terms by different editors: there is controversy and no consensus across several related fields (even including the very meaning of the words "genre" and "style") that has so far remained unresolved and made clear categorisation impossible to achieve. In the present context there is considerable confusion between the categories/genres "world music", "traditional music", "indigenous music" and "folk music". The awkward name of the category is my attempt to achieve better linking between articles so categorised, and it still seems to me the only immediate way to make progress in this necessary aim. Please do not delete or rename in the absence of a consensus over a better way to achieve it. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and start over. The name is a crying shame, and the contents aren't much better. If there is no consensus across fields to use common terms to name these different types of music, then we shouldn't be trying to group them together in one category. We should be using {{CatRel}} to link the various categories, not creating an artificial super-category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 18 November 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:Government in Leeds[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 Category:Government in Leeds to Category:Local government in Leeds. --Xdamrtalk 19:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Government in Leeds to Category:Politics in Leeds
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardise with parent Category:Politics of West Yorkshire and others. MRSC (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled on this renaming proposal whilst sorting out the politics and govt categories for Yorkshire, having already created a Category:Politics of Leeds, and partially depopulated the nominated category. I wouldn't have proceeded had I spotted the CFR underway, but what I have done is to create the appropriate Politics of X categories, and moved out of the Government of X categories the article which don't relate to local government.
To avoid further confusion, there may be a case for renaming the subcats of Category:Local government in England to "local government" rather than just "government", but if so I suggest that this should be done as a group nomination rather than an ad-hoc basis. There are squillions of other similar categories such as Category:Government in Warrington, Category:Government in Bournemouth, Category:Government in Oldham, Category:Government in Bury, Category:Government in Wigan, Category:Government in Dorchester, Category:Government in Weymouth, Category:Government in Pendle etc ... all of which deal solely with local govt, all of which are about local rather than national govt, and should be named accordingly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:55, 16 November 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:Low-carbon transport[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 into both parent categories. The category can be recreated if and when there is some clear definition of what it should contain that does not overlap an existing category. Note that the category only contained one sub category. The sole article was included in that category. So this is also a case of OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Low-carbon transport to Category:Electric vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Downmerge. So far, there is no description of the category nor any examples not from the targetted subcategory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete We have Category:Low-carbon economy, and Low-carbon economy includes a section on "Transportation Services." It does not, however, provide any canonical definition of "low-carbon," and the definitions it does provide are highly subjective and otherwise problematic.- choster 18:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. :-o I should have seen that. I've now attached it to Category:Low-carbon economy, and created a potentially appropriate {{catmain}}. I still think the category should be merged somewhere, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported deletion but held out in case a subject matter expert could cite some sort of international standard, comparable to Category:LEED certified buildings. Of course, where I live, almost all electricity is coal-fired, so electric vehicles do not in fact contribute to lowering carbon emissions.- choster 22:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Eleectric vehicles might be an example of Low-carbon transport, but there may be others (such as the bicycle). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you define "low carbon"?- choster 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't really matter since low carbon is not the same as electric. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The discussion is about the disposition of Category:Low-carbon transport, not simply whether to merge it or not. If it is not suitable for a merge, it may be still be suitable for a straight deletion, and since no one has proffered a suitable definition of "low-carbon" I think it is too subjective to use as a basis for categorization— hence worthy of deletion.- choster 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose low-carbon is not the same as electric. Merging would be wrong. If you want to delete the category, then make another CfD nomination for deletion. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because low-carbon is subjective, and among other things does not take into account indirect carbon emissions. If academia cannot agree on the exact indirect effects of the carbon emissions of particular modes of transport and their fules, I doubt we will be any better. Arsenikk (talk) 21:37, 23 November 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:Locomotives of Foo[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:
Full list of changes...
--Xdamrtalk 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Locomotives of the United States to Category:American locomotives
Category:Locomotives of France to Category:French locomotives
Category:Locomotives of South Africa to Category:South African locomotives
Category:Locomotives of Turkey to Category:Turkish locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form used for the other categories in Category:Locomotives by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename the others instead to Locomotives of Foo. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the category is about 'locomotives' then that should be the first term e.g. Locomotives of Foo. Makes searching much easier if your interest is 'locomotives'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — for several reasons (1) WP:NCCAT suggests that in ‘by country’ categories, it should be “Locomotives of Foo” rather than “Fooian Locomotives”; (2) It is “Locomotives of Foo” on Commons, so not having to remember two different forms is an aid to users; (3) Avoiding the adjectival form of country names is an aid to users for whom English is a foreign language. Iain Bell (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I propose renaming all Fooian locomotives to Locomotives of Foo in the Category:Locomotives by country tree. Iain Bell (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: For the record, the 113 categories affected have all been tagged and are:
By the way, my spell checker doesn't like “Argentinian”; it prefers “Argentinean”. Iain Bell (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iain Bell's suggestion to rename all the other categories to match these, per WP:NCCAT's general 'of country' rule. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If anyone is convinced that is the reverse merge is the correct direction, fell free to tag the other categories and close this nomination as withdrawn. If the others are not nominated, then this should be renamed for constancy. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iain Bell has tagged the others (or at least many of them) so I suggest we continue the discussion here. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Where does WP:NCCAT rule that such categories should be Locomotives of Foo? --Bermicourt (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I now realise it says that subcats of Category:Rail transport by country should be named "... in Foo". I'm not sure whether we should take that to mean just the immediate subcats or extend it to sub-sub-cats as well - anyone have any strong opinion on "on" vs. "in"? Either way I think the vast number of "noun preposition Foo" forms listed at WP:NCCAT means we should follow suit unless there's a good reason not to. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change to US category. "American" in WP refers to North and South America, NOT to US, for which the present title (or with phrases reversed) is correct. Neutral on rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iain Bell's idea. Put the what that is being categorized before the how they are being categorized. Plus it avoids adjectival forms, which can cause confusion. I also believe Olaf Davis's interpretation is correct, that it should be Locomotives in Foo, as locomotives are the sort of durable good that can, and often are, imported and not necessarily domestically made, which is implied by the use of "of". oknazevad (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per rationale explained in two of yesterdays nominations. Basically the arguments are that 1. This is the accepted form for this parent category 2. We use "American" for all category names that use the adjective to mean US, and this nomination is not the right forum to change that. Post instead on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion for such global proposals. In the mean time, Vegaswikian is right. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which bit of Vegaswikian's comment are you agreeing with? "tag the other categories" has already been done; "close this nomination as withdrawn" seems unnecessary since they've been added here - or are you saying we should close and reopen with the newly added categories?. "If the others are not nominated, then this should be renamed for constancy" - the others have been nominated, so this seems somewhat moot... Olaf Davis (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iain Bell's idea instead, per oknazevad, 76.66.201.240, et al. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iain Bell. If American us used as a synonym for USA, it should not be: Brazilians and Canadians are also Americans. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iain Bell's suggestion, the most user-friendly and accurate categorization. Arsenikk (talk) 21:33, 23 November 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:Haunted places in Britain[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 Category:Haunted places in Britain to Category:Reportedly haunted places in the United Kingdom. No consensus for change to 'Paranormal', though broad agreement on 'United Kingdom'. Renamed to match parent article, List of reportedly haunted locations, and avoid outrageously POV/OR concerns over whether there really are such things as wee ghosties and things that go bump in the night... --Xdamrtalk 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Haunted places in Britain to Category:Paranormal places in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. (1) Suggest changing "haunted" to "paranormal" to match parent category Category:Paranormal places. "Haunted" is a bit more definite-sounding (and thus POV) than "paranormal". "Haunted" suggests a knowledge of the reason the place is paranormal. (2) Suggest making this a country category ("United Kingdom") rather than an island one ("Britain", meaning "Great Britain", I assume). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename.Shadygrove2007 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "haunted", since that is what they are called. What is "paranormal place" supposed to mean? I'd rename that category. Rename to "United Kingdon" per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think "paranormal" is much broader than "haunted". The Bermuda Triangle would be called "paranormal", but not necessarily "haunted". But I think you are right that "paranormal" is not exactly crystal clear. I disagree though that narrowing it in this way is a step forward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 22 November 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:Name and title maintenance templates[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 Category:Name and title maintenance templates to Category:Wikipedia page name maintenance templates. --Xdamrtalk 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Name and title maintenance templates to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: "Name and title" is completely redundant. That's like saying "cats and felines". My initial proposal is Category:Page name maintenance templates, but consensus might prefer "title" over "name" or want to prefix it, as many categories do, to make it clear that it's a WP self-ref: Category:Wikipedia page name maintenance templates. We might also want to just drop the word "maintenance". I really don't care, I just want to get rid of the silly redundancy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That one is taken, incorrectly if you ask me, so make that Category:Title related templates. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 19 November 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.

D-Block[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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To expand and match parent article, D-Block Records. — ξxplicit 07:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 13:10, 16 November 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:IDM musicians[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 Category:IDM musicians to Category:Intelligent dance music musicians. --Xdamrtalk 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IDM musicians to Category:Intelligent dance musicians
Nominator's rationale: To expand and match parent article is intelligent dance music, as IDM is ambiguous. — ξxplicit 07:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but not to the proposed name. Trouble with the proposal is that it seems to presuppose we'll need a category for stupid dance musicians too. Perhaps Category:Intelligent dance (genre) musicians, analogous to the jazz ones listed below? Grutness...wha? 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. IDM only has one meaning in music, so there doesn't seem to be an ambiguity. The proposed name is worse, as Grutness mentioned, since it reads like "dance musicians who are intelligent", whereas "IDM musicians" is unambiguous in that way. What specific incidents of actual confusion prompted the rename? If there are none, then it seems unnecessary. The genre is generally called "IDM" but the article uses the long-form title due to style guidelines and because the short form is ambiguous in the general encyclopedia. But the category, as long as it contains the name musicians, doesn't need to match it because IDM only has one meaning in music, at least on Wikipedia. So it seems unnecessary to try to awkwardly change the category name to match the article name. The article itself does not use the term Intelligent Dance Musicians, does it? —mjb (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Intelligent dance (genre) musicians per Grutness or to Category:Intelligent dance music musicians. We avoid abbreviations in category names, and "intelligent dance musicians" is indeed worded ambiguously. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Good Ol’factory. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 19 November 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.

Brazilian jazz (genre) and Cuban jazz (genre)[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. I totally misunderstood the categories. That's what I get for being human. — ξxplicit 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Merge the first group as obvious duplicates. Renaming the second group to remove unnecessary disambiguation from categories. The parent article and category, jazz and Category:Jazz, don't contain it, so neither should its subcategories. — ξxplicit 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge, since the "(genre)" neatly disambiguates between genre and nationality. Charlie Byrd, for example, is a "Brazilian jazz" guitarist, not a Brazilian "jazz guitarist". BencherliteTalk 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to distinguish between performers of Brazilian / Cuban jazz and performers of jazz from Brazil or Cuba. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to maintain recent CFD namings and to avoid dilution of nationality and genre: Gillespie in one direction, Slim Gaillard, Byrd, Ivo Perelman, etc. in the other. AllyD (talk) 18:45, 16 November 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:Unknown Intensity[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. — ξxplicit 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Unknown Intensity to Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown intensity
Nominator's rationale: Rename and move to talk page. Name needs to be clarified. I also suggest that it become an administrative category and be moved to the talk page of the article, similar to how Category:Date of birth unknown and other similar "unknown" categories are treated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to more clearly describe the category's contents. Alansohn (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renaming but i would oppose it becoming an admistrative category as the WPTC are now categorising their articles by RSMC intensity and there are some Cyclones where there is not an RSMC intensity due to their being no best track available.Jason Rees (talk) 17:28, 16 November 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:Old School hip hop artists[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. --Xdamrtalk 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old School hip hop artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Equivalent to this discussion, though this category is much older. There's no clear inclusion criteria for this category. The description reads: "Rap/Hip-hop Artists who were popular during the Old school hip hop time period about 1979-1984." Popular to what extent? What if they weren't popular, would they not be considered old school? To recycle concerns brought in the last discussion, would rappers who continued their career past the old school hip hop era be exempt from this category? What about those who make old school hip hop past that era, would they not fall into this inclusion criteria either? Unclear, no definitive inclusion criteria, delete. — ξxplicit 06:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to correspond to a defining characteristic for navigation purposes and match the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - should both this and the article be at "Old-school hip hop"? Otherwise its about old hip hop played at school. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's arguments and the previous discussion. Seems like the same subjectivity and lack of definition problems exist here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Old School hip hop is inarguably a subgenre of hiphop because it has recognizable characteristics. An early time period (circa 1979-1984) is also a part of the criteria.Cosprings (talk) 00:35, 20 November 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.

Alt-country[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To clarify and match parent article, alternative country. — ξxplicit 06:16, 16 November 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 Mester's Animation[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. — ξxplicit 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Mester's Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only entries are Category:Movies made by The Mester's Animation and Category:Video Games made by The Mester's Animation (cf below) as well as some userspace pages. ... discospinster talk 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People create articles and as we see even categories before there is what to write about. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 19 November 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:Movies made by The Mester's Animation[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Movies made by The Mester's Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only entry is Category:Space Story Trilogy (cf below). ... discospinster talk 02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Not part of a usefull tree either. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 19 November 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:Space Story Trilogy[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Space Story Trilogy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Four entries that are all in userspace. ... discospinster talk 02:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those three "articles" consist of 1 sentence each. :) Debresser (talk) 13:53, 19 November 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:Video Games made by The Mester's Animation[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video Games made by The Mester's Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's only one article and it's in userspace. ... discospinster talk 02:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That one "article" consists of 1 sentence. :) Debresser (talk) 13:52, 19 November 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:Unicorporated Communities in the U.S.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per G6, empty, obvious typo, etc. BencherliteTalk 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unicorporated Communities in the U.S. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category was being used to contain all unincorporated communities in the United States, but we already have state-specific categories for that. It's also misspelled and a duplicate of Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:15, 16 November 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_November_16&oldid=1144514060"