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 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Nominated for deletion, but really this merits a discussion. How many times do we need to list paper in a category like this? I suspect that this is a category that would include everything in some way. Maybe the solution is to just make this a parent category. But then what do we do with every paper article? I did notice that guano was not included. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly everything is recyclable if you try hard enough.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike Selinker. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 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.
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 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The included articles and categories commonly have power in the name. In addition, this collective provides power, except for the standalone systems, to the Category:Electric power transmission systems so having power in the name follows a logical structure. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 20 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.
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. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needs trimming or deletion of category and subcategories. It seems that everyone is slapping "x ballads" categories on willy-nilly without sources explicitly identifying any song as a ballad. It seems people think "slower song" = "ballad" when there's more defining characteristic than that. For instance, very few of the songs here use a narrative; I Swear doesn't; So Small doesn't; etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These genres are popular music, and in popular music a ballad is a slow song. But what is "Islands in the Stream" doring here? I remove it. J 1982 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I definately don't think that them containing some songs that aren't really ballads is a reason for deletion, all that needs to be done is removal of the non-ballad songs. Nowyouseemetalk2me 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all ballad categories. It seems to me that the current grouping of these is vaguely defined as "any song which tells a story". And I don't see how that would be helpful to categorisation. Sounds more like an overflowing, voluminous category. - jc37 00:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly appropriate parent category to group articles by a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 7 September 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:speedy deleted as re-created material (and per WP:SNOW, for that matter): has been deleted squillions of times under various names. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective category with respect to definition of "celebrity", and per WP:BLPCAT, a nightmare. Many of the people already listed in it were convicted years ago and have a right to move on from youthful indiscretions; additionally, some jurisdictions allow old convictions to become rehabilitated and this category gives undue emphasis to such. This should be approached with the same caution as if we were adding Category:Criminals to biographies. Rodhullandemu 15:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP timebomb. Very easy to be lazy and create a category that puts traffic violations and murder on the same page. I've also looked at three of the articles listed to see if it was in fact some kind of minor traffic infraction (Jordin Sparks, Jennifer Coolidge and America Ferrera) and there was no mention of a criminal case in any of the articles. So that's three names on a currently very short list, that have been added without an attempt at providing reliable sourcing (and I have reverted on those articles). Rossrs (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could easily become a BLP nightmare. Salih(talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and others. – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and Rossrs comments. Cat puts murderers in with people guilty of a driving conviction. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and because the category creator/populator's recent editing history shows a lack of constructive intent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, the category creator's intent appears to make it a sort of scandal sheet. GcSwRhIc (talk) 18:46, 20 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.
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 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that this category is for riders who gave ridden in the British Superbike Championship, not Superbike riders who are British. DH85868993 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simple participation in this race does not appear to be a defining characteristic. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed that rename separately. (I didn't add it to this proposal to avoid corrupting Beagel's !vote). DH85868993 (talk) 12:31, 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.
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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is 100% OR and NPOV. I would request a speedy deletion if there was an appropriate criteria. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely POV and OR, I agree that if possible it should be flushed as soon as possible. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of NPOV, speedy if possibele. Salih(talk) 16:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't qualify for Speedy, but we certainly don't allow "Best Xyz" categories. Period. So Delete per nom. Cgingold (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--did we need another one? Can it snow on categories? Drmies (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. However, is there a case for renaming without "best"? I have not investigated in detail. If the colleges are universities offering many courses, this would be inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm looking at this right now, it's an empty category. Was it populated at the time of nomination and then emptied, or was it always empty? If the latter, then it can actually be speedied as an empty category. But I digress; it's definitely a delete regardless of whether we speedy or snow or seven-day it. Bearcat (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It had items, but one of the other editors removed the category links under the idea that it was likely to be deleted; I'm not sure if that editor was following proper procedure in doing so. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category creator has added a scan of a page from a magazine, which is some sort of college ranking from some group/magazine called "Mint" (or MINT?). I've requested speedy deletion on that file as it's obviously a copy-vio. This has no effect on the deletion of the category, as I don't believe we would make such a category based on an arbitrary company's evaluation, even if that company were notable--i.e., we don't categorize U.S. universities based on their rank in US News & World Report rankings. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:02, 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.
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 and merge as nominated. "Organisations" will be used for the UK category instead of "organizations" for obvious reasons. — ξxplicit 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all I agree with the rationale but I expect you will find that the US contributors to the article won't be happy. Richerman (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant renaming or merging the article Humane society- shouldn't the discussion about that be on the article's talk page rather than here? Richerman (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid duplication I think it should be here, at least to start; if a separate debate develops it can be moved there later. I have linked here from Talk:humane societyjnestorius(talk) 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. This is a good nomination. It resolves the ambiguity. There is no reason we should be grouping animal welfare organisations and human-life-rescuing organisations together under the generic name "humane societies". "United Kingdom" is also the standard division for orgs, not "Great Britain". UK categories should read "organisations". Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, yes, but not necessarily always. Some organisations operate on an all-Ireland basis with a sister organsiation in GB. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing the issue of articles vs. the issue of categories. As I said, the UK is standard for categories; but there are articles that are about GB orgs. In other words, there are articles that refer to organisations that only act within GB, but there are no categories that limit inclusion to organisations in GB. The categories all apply UK-wide. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the human-life organization was placed in the +cat by mistake, it has been removed. WritersCramp (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and it will happen again and again as long as the category has a name that it shares. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Humane societies of which there are many deserve to have their own category, broken down by country. You can simply place the category into your animal welfare +cat. 15:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There are many organizations which do exactly the same things as a humane society, but are named differently. It really isn't a distinct class of thing; it's just a name that some organizations within a single class of thing use while other organizations within that same class of thing don't. So there's no real need for a distinct category for what boils down to a naming trait. Bearcat (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ambiguity. Bearcat (talk) 06:13, 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.
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 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Category with unclear inclusion criteria. Best upmerged to the main category. Tassedethe (talk) 09:48, 20 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the main article which lists blackouts as another name. Since the articles tend to use blackout almost exclusively not mentioning power outage, I wonder if renaming the main article is the better choice. So raising the issue here to see which direction has the consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unless there is another more formal term that isn't coming to mind, Category:Blackouts is probably better than Category:Power outages since that term could also refer to outages in individual units rather than widespread outages. On the other hand, "blackouts" might be thought to refer to "blacking out" -- i.e. losing consciousness -- so perhaps we should insert another word for clarity? Cgingold (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Like 'electricity blackouts' ? Hmains (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or "Power blackouts", I suppose -- unless somebody has a better idea. Cgingold (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or to be overly precise and follow the nomination below, Category:Electric power blackouts. So I guess a question is, do we have other types of power blackouts? If yes, we need to use the more precise suggestion. Otherwise the shorter one should be fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vegaswikian's last suggestion. "outages" is not normal British English. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 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.
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 both — ξxplicit 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This is an improvement through clarity Hmains (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (conditional support -- see the comment below). Beagel (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have also Category:Electricity distribution. For systematic approach, it should be also renamed Category:Electric power distribution. At the same time, its main article is Electricity distribution. What should be done: rename the distribution category notwithstanding its main article, or rename the distribution category and its main article, or do not rename this category and rename instead its main article to match the category? Beagel (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor cleaning up in this area, which I think you have identified earlier. I'll probably add Category:Electricity distribution to this nomination based on your comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 20 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.
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 the correct categorization style in Category:Defunct sports teams and to more accurately describe the contents (contains, and is limited to, defunct British teams). Tassedethe (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the category is limited to British teams, is there really a need to add in the United Kingdom? — ξxplicit 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please relist for more discussion. - jc37 00:52, 4 September 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:Hospitals in Massachusetts by county[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:Merge. Upmerge to both parents. Adds an unnecessary level of navigation. I may nominate some of the small categories for the same reason. A large number of small categories is not always helpful for navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge. Although I agree with the nominator's rationale, I wouldn't call "small" the Middlesex County category, with eighteen members. Upmerge the rest, however. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the nomination for now is just the shared parent. I had not yet reached an opinion on the subcategories. However I do like your suggestion which is basically to only leave the largest one and upmerge the others. I'll consider adding that level of detail and nominating the small categories for upmerging. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the desire to simplify navigation; however, it should be noted that this is part of a very extensive categorization scheme in Massachusetts. (Evidently we have a very large number of editors who reside there... ) (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}})Cgingold (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is This is part of a buildings and structures by county category tree, which one can find by going upward through the parents. Once you start deleting such categories, then the county tree structure becomes useless. A goal of WP is not to eliminate categories, but to provide categories that are helpful to the reader by grouping common objects together so that reader can readily find such common objects once s/he has one object in hand. Hmains (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note well, there is nothing in this nomination to eliminate the by county building and structures categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There are no hospital subcategories such as by type, and it's bad practice to intersect the most specific category at the county level instead of the state. postdlf (talk) 06:41, 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.
Relisted on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_7. Ruslik_Zero 12:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)