Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

August 16[edit]

Category:Atomic Age of Comic Books[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - completing malformed nomination by User:Tenebrae. Tenebrae gave no deletion rationale, but I concur with deletion. "Atomic Age of Comic Books" is not in wide usage and where it is used there is disagreement as to what would fall under this classification. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I sometimes find the template directions hard to follow. I give my deletion rationale here, under "'Atomic Age of Comics' is not a recognized era". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is a cumbersome way of stating something about various alleged ages of comic books. The standard way of subcatting Category:History of comics suffices. Occuli (talk) 09:26, 17 August 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:Foo Army[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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Populated by only one article and appears to be confused whether it is a category or an article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The last 4 can all be speedily deleted soon (as empty) as their articles are succumbing at afd. The first one is quite different and has several subcats; and so deletion seems undesirable. Occuli (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it appears that the CFD for Category:Atomic Age of Comic Books was grafted on to this one. I've separated them. If this is in error please feel free to revert. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- part of an elaborate walled garden of Heroscape cruft. The articles that populate them are going to be, rightly, deleted at AfD so there's no need for them to hang around. Reyk _YO! 06:35, 17 August 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:Republican Liberty Caucus 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the other of two such categories for a non-defining Congressional caucus. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the below nomination, this is a defining characteristic of a politician. The RLC is one of the major, usually mutually-exclusive, factions within the Republican Party (along with the Republican Study Committee and the Republican Main Street Partnership). Since the distinction between these groups is well-defined, and they are usually mutually-exclusive, it is a defining characteristic of why a politician is notable: his or her politics. As such, it is defining of the politician him or herself. Bastin 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This would then be categorization on the basis of political belief or opinion, which isn't done. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it would be categorisation by organisational affiliation. Categorisation by beliefs is currently discouraged because it is often a way for people to push POV by incorporating categories without proper references - whilst categories don't allow the nuances and explanations that the prose allows, and are thus good mechanisms to push a POV. This, because of the hard-and-fast, publicly-defined membership, is not the same. Bastin 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with categorization by political party, but not by sub-party faction or platform, since their memberships are far more fluid and impermanent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Far more fluid? I wasn't aware that many people had moved from the RLC to the Main Street Partnership recently. Bastin 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Let me know when the RLC celebrates its 150th anniversary, as the Republican Party recently did. The Liberty Caucus will probably be defunct in another decade or two. And yes, joining/changing a caucus is far more common than a politician changing a party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:04, 22 August 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:Liberty Caucus 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - one of any number of political caucuses in Congress. Membership doesn't seem to be particularly defining of its members and this appears to be one of only two such categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attendance of meetings is not defining. This is a very different case to the above. Bastin 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with categorization by political party, but not by legislative caucus, since their memberships are far more fluid and impermanent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 22 August 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:ATP Volvo International[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ATP Volvo International to Category:Volvo International

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The tournament was known as the 'Volvo International', which is indeed what the corresponding article is named - Volvo International - there is no need to add 'ATP', which indicates the tour (ATP Tour). The present category name is moreover misleading as the Volvo International was for much of its existence was not part of the ATP Tour Mayumashu (talk) 21:04, 16 August 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:People from Shannon County, South Dakota[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: Renamed under G7. I saw this as the speedy and was willing to leave it there. No reason that I can see for a full discussion over a simple mistake. I changed the target to Category:People from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota since that seems to read better. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Shannon County, South Dakota; please change name to Category:People from Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota. I thought that the reservation was solely within Shannon County, but it turns out that it also comprises parts of other counties. I initially posted this for speedy category deletion, but I am not sure now if this is correct. It should be speedy as I am the category's creator and I can't imagine any controversy about the matter, but just in case, I am listing it here. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:59, 16 August 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:Chill-out drinks[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:Anti-energy drinks, a term which seems to be gaining traction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Slang term; these drinks don't have official names and there's little chance for expansion. All are already categorized as soft drinks. Given that there's no official name for these reverse-energy-drinks, I think they should be decategorized until there's a true name for them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Anti-energy drinks, which is not slangy and is the primary term used in the article Energy drink. Having a long history of editing (or rather, largely reverting vandalism in) the article Purple drank (where people have sometimes tried to insert advertisements for new drinks of this type), I see a continuing need for a category for these drinks. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 18 August 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:Kipling stories with supernatural elements[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Kipling stories with supernatural elements to Category:Short stories by Rudyard Kipling

Nominator's rationale: Merge - artificial and overly broad. Subject to definitional difficulties. Do the Jungle Book stories or the Just So stories contain "supernatural elements" because of the talking animals? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Listify More a list topic. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The Kipling stories seem to be very overcategorized for some reason. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 23 August 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:Post-Soviet Russia[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Post-Soviet Russia to Category:History of Russia (1992–present)

Nominator's rationale: The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_1#Category:Post-Soviet_Russia closed as a keep. It was being nominated for deletion, due to reasons which I stated there, but there is agreement that a category for Russia 1992 onwards is required, although there is disagreement that "Post-Soviet Russia" is the way to go, because when does Post-Soviet Russia stop being Post-Soviet Russia? There is a category Category:History of the United States (1991–present) with its lead article being History of the United States (1991–present). Based upon years being a nice way to separate articles (which is done not only with US articles, but many others), I moved History of post-Soviet Russia to History of Russia (1992–present) and suggest that we make the same change to the category, as mooted above. It is unambigious, and it solves the "Post-Soviet" problem that many editors recognise as being a problem, both in NPOV terms and in terms of when does it stop being PSR. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of the proposed name (I think it's just plain ugly), but since I am unable to come up with anything better, since it does fit along the lines of other similar cats (like the US mentioned), and since I think that the current name is a very poor choice due to its ambiguous and overly broad scope, I support this nomination nevertheless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2010; 15:43 (UTC)
Comment Here are other categories which use the date to separate - Category:History of countries by period. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the years are a more clear and objective way to separate. The "Post-Soviet Russia" characterisation won't last forever anyway. Modern-day France is not called "Post-Napoleonic France" either. Offliner (talk) 12:57, 21 August 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:Metropolitan boroughs established in 1974[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, not a thing to merge. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All Category:Metropolitan boroughs were established in 1974. MRSC (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge - which should come to the same thing). Anything similar created since is a unitary authority. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 21 August 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:Anatolian states in middle ages[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 States in medieval Anatolia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Propose renaming Category:Anatolian states in middle ages to Category:States in Anatolia during the Middle Ages~~

Nominator's rationale: Correct English, and since this is about a geographic region, it is more precise to speak of "states in Anatolia", especially since many of these were not confined to Anatolia. Constantine ✍ 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Redirect to already existing category, States in medieval Anatolia. Constantine ✍ 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As the creator of the category, I don’t see any difference between Anatolian states and states in Anatolia. So why do I object ? As a rule of thumb, the names should be left untouched unless a there is a solid reason to rename. (ıncorrect spelling, irrevelant proper name etc.) To change names because of a trivial reason is nothing but a loss of energy and time. (These are just what I am losing at the moment) As for the reason “not confined to Anatolia”, well sincerely I don’t see how the non confined states are included in the category by renaming.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Anatolian state" does convey the image of a state primarily centered in Anatolia. Yet the category already includes many states that extended far beyond it, indeed, states whose center of power was not in Anatolia. And even if this reason appears trivial, "in middle ages" is not correct English, and a rename is in order... In future, please read the rationale more carefully before dismissing such poposals. Regards, Constantine ✍ 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to existing category. Not sure a redirect is needed. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 18 August 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:Lennon/McCartney songs not originally released by The Beatles[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Lennon/McCartney songs not originally released by The Beatles to article ???

Nominator's rationale: Or delete as basically redundant to The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The first idea (convert to a new article) already exists as Lennon/McCartney#Non-Beatles_songs. It is not precisely the same as "not originally released by The Beatles" (see below) but the difference is manageable. No action necessary here. The question is not "where should it go" but "is the category necessary, in first place". Weak oppose to the rationale behind your second proposal: an article on an album does not replace a category (different, narrower criteria). For example, I Call Your Name is both a "giveaway song", and a Beatles song (I suspect that most listeners don't know the original Billy Kramer version) - it was not included in The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away for a good reason. East of Borschov 05:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever is decided it should never be merged to The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away. A songwriter cannot legally or morally 'give' away a song. The giving away of songs is fancruft terminology used by people who don't have the first inkling of how the music business works. That article should be, at least, renamed immediately. And there's incorrect capitalization of the article too. Richhoncho (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the article? It's the name of an album. Cannot comment on capitalization - "Gave Away" is capitalized on the front cover, other words are in all-caps. What would you suggest, all-caps in the title? East of Borschov 10:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, East of Borschov, I have been caught with my eyes closed or some similar expression. However, even more reason it should not be merged with an album. Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of category. I think we should avoid categorizing things in a negative sense; ie, things not done by so-and-so, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 23 August 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:Las Vegas Stars players[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Las Vegas Stars players to Category:Las Vegas Stars (baseball) players

Nominator's rationale: To distinguish from Las Vegas Stars (basketball). –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 01:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to avoid confusion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:22, 16 August 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:Kipling stories with Strickland[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: Upmkerge into Category:Short stories by Rudyard Kipling. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It's a small category that falls under WP:Overcategorization. This Strickland character does not even have his own article. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened (still) by what I see as an unnecessarily limiting by the wikipedia community of how to deal with articles (and categories) on literary topics. The study of literature (and other humanities subjects) is not of the same nature as that of most scientific and technological subjects, in which many facts are certain, unchallengeable, and unchanging. Literature, like other arts, has of its nature, a strong subjective element. The expert practitioner is one who learns to form a judgement that in broad outlines falls within recognizable limits and bounds of the subject - but is not expected to be identical with that of any other expert practitioner of the subject. It is to this end that I proposed so many categories for Kipling's stories. Of teh important ones, in my judgement - those dealing with K's attitudes to race/religion etc - each was intended to group some of the material that would provide evidence for those seeking to establish what Kipling's views were on the relevant topic. These expanded into stories involving particular topics, such as Europeans in India, etc. Most of those categories have already been deleted, despite my mild protests (I am not a strong member of teh community). I still think it was methodologically unsound to delete them - but they've gone. There's no reason why Strickland (a minor outcrop of 'Europeans in India') should not follow. I have been so discouraged by the fact that the constraints imposed on my Kipling project that it has fallen into disuse. I am devoting my efforts to other work. MacAuslan (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like nevertheless to flag up a real concern about how arts are treated in wikipedia.

P.S. Perhaps I will write the page on "this Strickland character", who is of interest mostly as an expression of some of K's responses to India and the Anglo-Indian Raj, this week, if there is any sign that my concerns might be addressed. I have two hesitations: 1) that I don't have much time; and 2) that I am not really aware about how to begin such an argument of such (potentially) fundamental importance to an encyclopedia. MacAuslan (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Short stories by Rudyard Kipling. Insufficient material to warrant a separate category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I have some sympathy with what you say, but as it is the category only contains one story, and the coillection in which that story appears, so it is pretty useless. There is no article on the character - Strickland does not go where you probably think it does. Why not do that instead? Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- The subject would be much better dealt with by having an article on Strickland, much as I sympathise with MacAuslan's view. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 21 August 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:PAGES WITH INCORRECT FORMATTING TEMPLATES USE[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PAGES WITH INCORRECT FORMATTING TEMPLATES USE to Category:Pages with incorrect formatting templates use

Nominator's rationale: Or something else; why is this category shouting at me? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. no need to shout :) --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Category:Templates with incorrect formatting or similar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename by all means. I'm sure there was a reason but I have forgot it quite. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 16 August 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:American Episcopalian architects[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American Episcopalian architects to Category:American Episcopalians

Nominator's rationale: Category:American Episcopalians is not subdivided by occupation (apart from clergy, which is a legitimate nationality subcat of Category:Anglican clergy). Also (per Mangoe below) delete Category:American Episcopalians by occupation which will be empty. Occuli (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is unnecessarily obscure triple intersection. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and delete supercategory:

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The above-named category is the only member. Mangoe (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge/delete as outlined above. Episcopalian architects? A rather odd combination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and delete) as above. This is clearly a NN intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 21 August 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:Marti Pellow[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pretty substantial overcategorisation, I'd say. If necessary a template could link these articles far more effectively. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as small cat. I've added Category:Pop albums to the daughter cat Category:Marti Pellow albums. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:51, 16 August 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.