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: I have recently created this category with to narrow a focus. It sould be renamed to match the parent category so it can be include both monument and memorial lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - the nom can do this by creating the new one and putting {{db-author}} on the 'old' one (as no-one else is involved). Occuli (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep as a container category. It may or may not be possible in theory for a container category to constitute overcategorization, but this was not demonstrated to be the case in this instance. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm bringing this one back here after the close of this discussion which removed most of the articles from this category and the children categories. Now that the cleanup is done and we can see the results, do we want to keep this parent category, and by inference, the one for the 21st century? The discussion was unclear in my mind about the utility of the these two parents. So this nomination is more to reaffirm my close as a keep for the top level categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking at say Category:20th-century French people, these are all reasonable subcats apart from the writers' one. (And a container category leads to no article clutter as it doesn't appear on any articles.) Occuli (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization- Gilliam (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can a category which appears on no articles at all possibly be 'overcategorization'? Where is the 'clutter' to which this category is contributing? Or is there some interpretation of WP:OCAT which I have missed? Occuli (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2010 (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. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article of this category (which I moved) and the main article and category of the topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Current name is more concise. Maurreen (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is it fair to say that "9/11" is pretty much an exclusively American way of referring to the attacks? I don't hear or see that terminology used anywhere but in American media. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response In Europe, it would be "11/9", so that probably has something to do with it. Otherwise, I don't know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. As a Brit I know it as 9/11, because we have inherited the American terminology on this event. IMO. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just Googled "9/11 site:uk", and I got 2,000,000 hits. Maurreen (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "11/9 site:uk" got 342,000 hits. Maurreen (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's not referred to as 11/9—it just seems to me a little bit more common outside of America to refer to "September 11" than "9/11" outside of American media sources. Maybe the issue is irrelevant. "9/11" just seems a bit like an abbreviation to me, and we tend to avoid abbreviations in category names. "September 11 attacks" would be clearer and therefore would make more sense to me. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I put up the hits for "11/9", my point was to show that the "9/11" hits were more than would be from a random combination. Maurreen (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to avoid what is essentially an abbreviation, which are discouraged for category names. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main article is 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I think that harmonisation of the article names (the one above does not match the article name, as you have stated) should be pursued before the categories are proposed for re-naming. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I supported expanding "9/11" to "September 11 attacks" in the nomination above this one, but in this case I think that there may be a common usage issue between "9/11 conspiracy theories" and "September 11 attacks conspiracy theorists". -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:20, 2 May 2010 (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:Speedied as per creator's tag. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does Unclear initiative mean ? Gnevin (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the nom means that it is unclear what purpose is served by Category:Manual of Style in general and Category:Categorization (Manual of Style) in particular. What sort of material do we expect to find in these mysterious entities, their creator having neglected to supply any inclusion criteria? Occuli (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the purpose of Manual of Style is to show what is currently part of the MoS a category we don't currently have and Category:Categorization (Manual of Style) doe what it says on the tin. Its the part of the MoS related to categories Gnevin (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I had in mind something along the lines of what Occuli said. Two Wikipedia pages about categorisation that are not part of MoS in a category called "Categorization (Manual of Style)" is what struck me as strange enough to call this initiative "unclear". Even after the explanations here and on my talk page, I fail to see how these Wikipedia pages relate to MoS. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are tagged as such because they are on {{Style}} which deals with the MoS . Maybe they should be removed from there and this Category is unneeded Gnevin (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2010 (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) 01:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only 1 image, which is actually located at the commons. This image is already appropriately in commons:Category:Hernia. Scott Alter 17:22, 24 April 2010 (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:Delete. Categorizing by relationships is unnecessary. This category has six members of Hubbard family, three of which were L. Ron's wives. Karppinen (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each of the individuals are notable within their own right. They are not all directly members of his immediate family, but rather all are relatives that are notable in different ways. See for example Category:Obama family. -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are six people in this category. I don't see a problem with the category existing, considering the notability of L. Ron Hubbard as a founder of Scientology. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:03, 24 April 2010 (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 written by The Miracles members[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:Delete. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way, and every entry in this category is already categorized by the individual(s) who wrote the songs. Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prior to just recently,when I started this project, no one in the history of Wikipedia, has ever taken the time to list or document the songs written by the individual members of The Miracles,and it was ONLY RECENTLY, after I started it, that someone began to list the songs under their individual names. Since, of all of The Miracles, only Smokey Robinson's name is well known by the public,the result of this is that up until now,according to public perception,only Robinson alone wrote the songs, and has received sole credit for all of the songs written by the Miracles as a GROUP, which is unfair , since many of the songs were GROUP compositions.(I.E. the Miracles' 1965 Grammy Hall of Fame Inductee, The Tracks of My Tears was written by Miracles members Smokey Robinson, Pete Moore, and Marv Tarplin, not just Robinson alone).The reality is , I created this category to ensure that ALL of the songs written by EVERY member of The Miracles were listed together in one comprehensive category, to make sure that the entire group received credit for their songs, not just one member, and 2) to make it easier for the researcher to find a comprehensive list of ALL of their compositions in ONE PLACE, thereby making it unnecessary to have to look under all of their individual names to find their many composed songs, some of which, the researcher may not know. Regards and Many Thanks, Willgee (Willgee (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment, as you mentioned Tracks of My Tears, and only Smokey & 2 others of the Miracles co-wrote the song, it really shouldn't be listed under this category anyway because not all the The Miracles members wrote the song! Also, there are songs which these guys wrote for other artists and that mixes up the day job with the night job. As Occuli says below, this category would be much better suited as a list. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2010 (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; a broader nomination would be needed to change the standard naming convention for these types of categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match name of main article, Motown. Motown Records is a redirect. Richhoncho (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly support this move, as this category not only includes Motown Records releases, but that also of its subsidiaries, Tamla Records, Gordy Records, etc. Motown, like the main article, is the correct title, not Motown Records. Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see your point, but of the first half a dozen cats I checked none had "recording" including Decca, Arista, Colombia, RCA, also what happens when it is Foo Records? Does it become Foo Records recording artists? Artist does specifically say it relates to recording artists in the business sense, which of course it is in this instance. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (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 bring into line with the main article Motown, Motown Records is a redirect. Richhoncho (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support this move also, the reason being not only does this category include Motown Records releases, but that also of all its subsidiaries - i.e. Tamla Records, Gordy Records, etc. Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2010 (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:Media adapted from a television 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 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.
