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The result of the discussion was:WITHDRAWN. WOSlinker (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inactive WikiProject categories, only used by on one user sandbox page. WOSlinker (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do you know it is inactive? Debresser (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment three of the users associted with this wikiproject have been active in the last year. Of those, one has been intermittantly active over two years, another has been active for quite some time, and the last has been active not too many months ago. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why didn't you post a message at the WikiProject to see if anyone would answer you? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the creator of the categories in question, I think. I'm in the process of tagging for the UAE right now, but can and will do the assessments for this group, and concommitantly for its parent project, upon completion of same. Unfortunately, there aren't many people who do a lot of tagging/assessing, and there's a lot of work to be done. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment , ok, I've posted a message on the projects talk page. Maybe I could add a bit to the rationale: There didn't seem to be a need to assessment of articles presently. The categories could easily be re-created later on if assessment started to be used. But if it is going to be usefully used soon then I'll withdraw the nomination. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Is a category for winners of an intra-club award really necessary? We have an article for the award, sure, but I have a feeling this might go down as overcategorisation. – PeeJay 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly anyone outside of the Manchester United "fraternity" even knows about this award, unlike the European Footballer of the Year or FIFA World Player of the Year awards. This award is given annually to players from a single club and would be unlikely to receive any coverage in the national media other than perhaps to fill some time on Sky Sports News. As you know, Tocino, I'm a Man Utd fan too, but even I think that this is a bit much. – PeeJay 20:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorisation, though a template box to put on to player's article s would be fine.--EchetusXe 20:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does this mean that every club's 'Player of the Year' etc. awards deserve their own category? No, of course not, and I don't see why this is any different. GiantSnowman 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean that every club has to have one. Some clubs are bigger than others. --Tocino 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is an awards category. The usual answer to them is "listify and delete", but the article mentioned by Tocino already provides an adequate list. Categories are intended as a navigation tool, not as a medal for an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list on the main article is sufficient. --Jimbo[online] 15:20, 6 October 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:Listify & Delete per precedent and practice. --Xdamrtalk 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined two related nominations. Reasons and previous comment were identical. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No vote yet -- The decision should follow the precedents, when settled. However, I do not think the Oxfordshire category will ever have dignificant content, nor (probably) will the Hertfordshire one, but I am less familiar with that area. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about Oxon, but Hertfordshire lost a lot of area (and about 1/4 of its population - myself included) to Greater London in the mid 1960s. much of the London Borough of Barnet was formerly in Herts. That one's probably more comparable to the Berkshire one. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only two districts (Barnet and East Barnet) were lost in 1965, accounting for 7% of the population of Herts in 1961; and it got nearly half that back with Potters Bar. There were also some very minor exchanges in 1889. MRSC (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - though I susuect that that is still enough of an area and population for this category to be useful. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jza84 | Talk 15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous discussions on these types of categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Berks discussion. Bazj (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easiest way for a user to find, on one page, a list of places which were once in a particular county. Also useful for the maintenance of such articles, which I would suggest is important should consensus about such articles changes as a result of "long and acrimonious discussion". WFCforLife (talk) 22:18, 19 October 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:Withdrawn by nominator. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 15:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary category with only one item (band has only one album, album is not even out yet, and in any case there's a discussion underway to have the album's article redirected). Categories with only one item are useless for navigation and categorization. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of Category:Albums by artist, where all albums should appear. (The album will be out before this cfd finishes. Why the haste?) Occuli (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was not aware of that category ("Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded."). Withdrawing. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 15:25, 3 October 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 user 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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Incorrect name format for Wikipedian category; divisive ethnic nature Ian Cairns (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedians have the right to organise themselves by ethnic background. Apart from that basic right, it is likely to be instrumental to further development of specific articles. Debresser (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorizing users by ethnicity does not facilitate collaboration, the stated goal of user categories. You can't choose what ethnicity you are, so categorizing users based on a characteristic they can't choose is meaningless. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-identifying by a defining characteristic is exactly what these categories are for as an aid to collaboration. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 8 October 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. Very specialised category with a single article. Can be merged easily to the more general Category:3D graphics software. Tassedethe (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename that's the way of the world: conflicts become wars. Debresser (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:List of the star names by constellation[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to remove unneeded word. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename as stated by Alansohn -- BRG (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when this is renamed, someone should rename all the lists contained therein. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 21:15, 11 October 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 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.
