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. NW(Talk) 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate and match parent article, Junoon (band), as Junoon is ambiguous. — ξxplicit 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per nominator and criterion #6. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. First to disambiguate; others follow by standard practice. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:27, 4 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:Film production companies of Malaysia[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:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match naming standard in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 2 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.
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: Rename. Should be renamed to disambiguate and match respective articles, Tadpole (band) and Tadpoles (band). — ξxplicit 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per nominator and criterion #6. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 2 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.
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 מישהוOd Mishehu 09:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is woefully under populated. It is either be deleted or populated with all the templates using {{WPBannerMeta}}, {{Asbox}}, {{Userbox}}, {{Userbox-2}} and {{Userbox-r}} which would add somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 templates to the category. WOSlinker (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think this category serves any purpose. Especially not at the moment, as the nominator has pointed out correctly. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not positive, but I have a vague recollection this category (perhaps under a variant name?) was already at CFD before? - jc37 18:10, 2 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.
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. NW(Talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No indication of why this category is necessary, most possibly created out of humor. — ξxplicit 22:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles (mainspace) don't need moustaches, or if they do, a mustache can be readily provided. The category is therefore unlikely to every have proper members. Category appears to be misnamed; it doesn't match it's only member. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 5 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.
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: To disambiguate and match parent article, Tokio (band). "Tokio albums" is misleading and can cause confusion with Tokio. — ξxplicit 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per nominator and criterion #6. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 31 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:Suicide bombing in the Chechen-Russian conflict[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match ultimate parent Category:Chechen wars, which is how this conflict is usually referred to collectively in the category tree. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that the parent is "Suicide bombings by country". Leaving aside for a moment the messy business of whether Chechnya is a country, we probably still need an "s" on "bombing", especially since this seems to be being used for specific incidents. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - I hadn't noticed those two articles. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles are not about bombings, nor about bombing itself, and are already adequately classified into "bombers" categories. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 22 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) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I am not clear how prevalent this kind of bombing was (or is), but it is clearly notable. If there are irrelvant articles in the category, they should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Possibly exclude those two articles mentioned above and make it "bombings". Debresser (talk) 21:23, 3 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.
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Main article was renamed so the category should follow. The dab is needed on the article since heavy equipment is ambiguous. However, we could consider a rename to Heavy equipment vehicles which I believe is not ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as pointed out in the article rename discussion, is that Heavy equipment is ambiguous. Any suggestion on how to deal with that issue? I have no problem with Category:Heavy equipment (construction) as a parent, but the category also has Category:Vehicles as a parent so the name should reflect that. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 20 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) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current name satisfactorily and intuitively matches the membership. The suggested renames are more problematic. Aren't all "engineering vehicles" heavy, and normally used for construction, but not vice-versa. "Equipment" is not sufficiently exclusive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 5 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:Wikipedians who don't live with their parents[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. NW(Talk) 19:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:USERCAT, category doesn't support collaboration nor is it a defining characteristic for Wikipedians. — ξxplicit 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: suggest it is very much a defining characteristic, given that most Wikipedians seem to be under the age of eighteen, and probably do live with their parents.The Rationalist (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless an actual policy reason is given, then I'll reconsider. Verbalchat 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USERCAT states: the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. What does categorizing users who live with or without their parents help improve or develop Wikipedia? — ξxplicit 20:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:USERCAT, this seems more like an attempt at divisive humor than aiding collaboration. Unomi (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as defining and uniting. In general I propose to be lenient with voluntary self-organisation of Wikipedians and to nominate here only extreme cases. I think that is consistent with the leniencies we allow on userpages. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social club, and why should knowing that your conversational partner doesn't have the added complication of a parental unit walking in on their private moments matter if it isn't? 76.66.203.102 (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:USERCAT. Policy is clear and this Cat. falls foul of it by a considerable margin. Leaky Caldron 14:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This will apply to a large percentage of adult Wikipedians. The reverse (those who do live with parents) might be defining. but not this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete - Per WP:USERCAT. Additionally, this is a "not" category, in that it categorizes Wikipedians by something they are not, which historically is by itself enough to delete a user category, let alone something as unencyclopedic as this. Even if it were a defining characteristic, that shouldn't be a factor in keeping or deleting this. Why? Because collaborative value is the measure for user categories, not if it is a defining characteristic or not. That's a question for article categories, not user categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above, and just like to add that "live with" could be vague itself... - jc37 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too ambiguous to be defining. Orphans, Foster children and some Young offenders don't live with their parents, whereas more mature editors may have invited a surviving parent to live in their household (q.v. Sandwich generation). Anyway, there's probably a cultural bias, e.g. in Germany it is inexpensive for young graduates to live away from home—whereas the burden of student debt and higher rentals in the UK make living with parents an unavoidable evil for many. Perhaps this is why so many of my German friends have doctorates? - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not terribly conducive to collaboration. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Membership criterion is not related to wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 5 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.
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: There were never any hundreds in Yorkshire. The articles in this category were wapentakes; these were pretty much identical in function, so it's sensible for this to be a subcategory of Category:Hundreds of England, but the name of the category should reflect the actual name of the districts. Warofdreamstalk 13:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is the same in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, so I've added them to the nomination. In Cumberland, similar districts were known as wards, so I've also added them. In Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, wapentakes later became hundreds, and the Leicestershire category contains a mix of the two. As these aren't simple, I've not nominated these, although they might merit some discussion. Warofdreamstalk 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ancient subdivisions of X might be better for all such categories, this would make the addition of liberties, ridings, lathes and divisions etc less of a problem and solve Leicestershire's inconvenient shift from wapentakes to hundreds. MRSC (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that proposal. Warofdreamstalk 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient suggests that these are now obsolete - is that true for all? Traditional subdivisions of might be better, but otherwise I agree. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going on the basis of ancient = established in antiquity, which is true for all. I don't think traditional is ever used to describe these entities, whereas ancient is. [1]MRSC (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category:Hundreds of Leicestershire has been partly tagged. Can some one please complete (or delete) its nomination? There may be a few more this applies to. The position is that the counties of the Danelaw had wapentakes and (most of) the rest of England had hundreds. Perhaps the solution for Leics and Northants may be "Wapentakes and Hundreds". The liberties of Wenlock and Cleobury Morimer in Shropshire operated much like hundreds, so that I see no need not to categories them as hundreds. The distinction was a technical one that a bailiff was appointed locally to carry out the sheriff's functions, something that also happened in the hundreds of Oswaldslow and Pershore in Worcestershire. I would suggest that the parent should remain Category:Hundreds of England, since that applies to most of the country. However Kent has lathes and Sussex rapes, which are something higher than hundreds. This is a case where history is not neat and tidy, and we have to live with that. We may need a separate category for higher county subdivisions, such as the Ridings of Yorkshire, the Parts of Lincolnshire (one of which had ridings), the Quarters of Gloucestershire, and the rapes and lathes. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 31 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:Rename. To rename ambiguous category to match article Dives (bird). Tassedethe (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per nominator and criterion #6. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - indeed, I had images of bad take out : ) - jc37 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 2 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:United States naval vessels named after foreign nationals[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The intent of the category, from the statement on the category page and how it is categorized, seems limited to vessels of the United States Navy, and not the more broad "United States naval vessels" (which could include U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army, or U.S. Air Force ships). — Bellhalla (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Correct arguments. Debresser (talk) 23:28, 31 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.
Rename per nominator. This is a nice one. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:04, 2 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:Motor vehicle manufacturers of Arab World[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. — ξxplicit 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator and my opinion at that discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge; I'm not convinced that this is a good way of organising subcategories about economic or industrial topics. By country is standard and makes far more sense in context. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:33, 3 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.
