Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4[edit]

Category:American baseball players by home state[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. Courcelles 02:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American baseball players by home state to Category:American baseball players by state
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basically to match the form used by the other subcategories. Home state is actually ambiguous. Does it mean where you are born? Where you spent most of your life? Where you went to school? Do military brats have a home state? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 4 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:ZF transmissions[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. Courcelles 02:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ZF transmissions to Category:ZF Friedrichshafen transmissions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 4 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:US OFAC Specially Designated Global Terrorist[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:Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Spelling out acronym and pluralizing, and eliminating "US" in front (this is not part of the agency's name). No consensus exists for any other change, though the argument "We should have only one category for the U.S." is extremely compelling, and this might fare differently as part of a larger nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:US OFAC Specially Designated Global Terrorist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Nominator's rationale: The category is much too specific. If there would be a category for every list that is being maintained by a country's government, the categorization scheme would become unmanageable.
More importantly, the content of that list is subject to change. Presumable, we will not be able to apply such changes immediately to the category. Having people on this list that are not actually on the US OFAC list would be a serious WP:BLP issue.   Cs32en Talk to me  19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is already a partially-referenced (though apparentely incomplete?) list in the main article, Specially Designated Global Terrorist (which thankfully drops the arcane initialism "US OFAC"). Cgingold (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, it is in line with additional government maintained categories that we maintain, such as "U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations", "FBI Most Wanted Terrorists" and "United Kingdom Home Office designated terrorist groups". Having said that, I think renaming "US OFAC" to "US Office of Foreign Assets Control" would be a good idea since "OFAC" is indeed not a well known initialism. Marokwitz (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename by expanding OFAC, as an abbreviation that not every one knows (if kept). Any libel issues resulting from removal of a person for the list will no doubt be resolved quickly by editing, when a complaint is made. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Is this serious? It is in line with additional government maintained categories that we maintain, notable, and knowable. And the vast majority of our lists are subject to change -- is that really the best nom can come up with? Ridiculous.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I support the deletion of all "organizations designated terrorist by XXXX" categories. They are too centric and have become problematic in a variety of ways, one of which is the need for constatnt updating. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All lists "need" updating. If you are only for lists that don't "need" updating, and categories that don't "need" updating, that's a fine notion to bring to an RfC. But while we have lists and cats, that sounds suspiciously like "IDONTLIKEIT".--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list; it is a category. It is my opinion that they have been (and should be) treated differently and that different considerations will therefore apply to each. In my opinion, categories are best kept "timeless". These ones are also far too -centric, as I said. Please don't attempt to dismiss user statements that you disagree with with an invocation of IDON'TLIKEIT. It's better to ask questions rather than assume you know what someone is thinking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT "timeless", if the category continues to contain individuals who were once named on the list, and but who have been removed, then it would be timeless, wouldn't it? OJ Simpson would continue to belong in a category named something like Category:Murder suspects, even once he was acquitted. Geo Swan (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what you set out is the definition of "timeless" as I was using it. Timeless means it doesn't change, except when new ones are added. Once in the category—always in the category. We don't generally categorize people by past or current status. That's why I don't think stuff like this is good for categories—people get squeamish about including people in the category when they've been removed from the list, as well they should. Hence my vote for deletion—these just don't work well in the normal way categories are operated, as much as users want to believe otherwise. That's the very reason we don't have Category:Murder suspects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree the OFAC part of the category name should be expanded. This is a clearcut category, unlike categories that require a judgement call on the part of contributors considering placing them or removing them.

    I frankly don't see the BLP concern mentioned above. BLP isn't supposed to protect the individuals we cover from facing well documented allegations in our articles. It is supposed to protect them from facing frivolous, specious, poorly documented allegations. It seems to me that many contributors whose interpretation of BLP would have us strip all negative material actually do a disservice to some of those individuals. Some individuals face serious allegations, from official bodies, that are nevertheless the subject of widespread skepticism. It seems to me that when the allegation is from an official body our opinions as to whether those allegations are credible are not relevant. It seems to me that when the allegation is weak, covering the allegation is in the individual's interest, because it gives our wide-awake, fair-minded, intelligent readers an opportunity to reach an informed opinion as to whether the allegation is credible. Stripping out "negative" allegations is not in the individual's interest, as it leaves our readers to rely on other sources, that aren't committed to the neutral point of view.

    We need the next major revision of the wikimedia software to replace the current category system with something different. It is an inherent weakness of our category system that it has no facility for the person who placed an article in the category to provide a reference, to substantiate why they placed it. In addition I think it is a weakness that categories have to history mechanism. Geo Swan (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think anyone is suggesting that we "strip out negative allegations" from any articles. Whether a category exists or not is an issue that is independent of what information exists in an article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our nominator wrote: "Having people on this list that are not actually on the US OFAC list would be a serious WP:BLP issue." Geo Swan (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And indeed it could be. If they're not on the list, presumably there would be no reference in the article for them being on the list. Hence there would be no stripping of information, apart from an improperly placed category, since categories should not be placed in the absence of referenced material. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too specific, redundant with Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States Department of the Treasury and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government, unfamiliar initialism. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad this CFD is still open, as I had meant to return to add a comment on this very point. Indeed, the larger issue here is that we should not have these categories for specific US govt. agencies. Every other country with analagous categories has just a single category -- not a multiplicity. (The Russian cat does specify the agency, but it's still the only one for that country.) The point being that, if we are going to have such categories at all, we should only have a single category for the US: Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government. Cgingold (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. Is this defining for the organization? Merging into List of designated terrorist organizations provides a much better perspective about an organization since you can see side by side which countries have made this designation and maybe more importantly which have not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 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:Printed electronics[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Printed electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Listify to main article and delete. There are several lists in the main article that cover the contents here. They are more complete and better organized. It is interesting to note that there is little overlap between the contents there and here. Perhaps an indication of the lack of need for this Mac category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 4 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:Energy feedstocks[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Energy feedstocks to Category:Sustainable energy
Nominator's rationale: Merge. OC small. I believe that the proposed target is a better home for the contents then the current parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 4 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:Fossil-fuel disasters[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fossil-fuel disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:POVFORK. It may be seen useful to categorize disasters by type of energy involved; however, it seems that this category is created just to incriminate fossil fuels. It is hard to see what is the common nominator of oil platform collapses or gas coalmine disasters. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but may need renaming to eliminate the en-dash. On this rare occasion I have to agree with the user whose name is a scarecrow here. "Fossil fuel" extraction is a defining common denominator for oil, gas, coal, etc. Just like Category:Transportation disasters is a convenient common umbrella for shipwrecks, plane crashes and rare cable car accidents. Hard to see? not really (Disclaimer: I might be intoxicated by the fumes of dried peat bogs burning just twenty kilometers away - another fossil fuel FUBAR. First they were wetlands, than peat quarries, now they just burn. I might see things :) ). East of Borschov 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The common nominator for most of them (not all) is "Industrial accidents and incidents". I don't think that Lake Monoun or Ronan Point explosions has nothing anything to do with "Fossil fuel extraction" (well, they also not industrial accidents). The comparison with transport disaster category is not correct as there is no specific categories based on the type of the fuel used by vehicle (e.g. category:Fossil fuel transport disasters not dreaming about category:Plug-in vehicles accidents). My point is that fire at the oil depot storing natural crude oil is a same as fire at the oil depot storing biofuels. Biogas explodes the same way as natural gas. Peat bogs burning is similar disaster as a forest (biomass) fire. In addition, the parent category:Environmental disasters is questionable as not every explosion or mining accident is necessarily environmental disaster. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per nom. This is precisely the kind of POV crap that Mac/Nopetro was allowed to get away with for far, far too long. Coal mining disasters are already adequately categorized with other forms of mining accidents; oil spills are also properly categorized. Dying in an underground coal mine disaster is imo no more or less intrinsically linked to an oil platform spill than perishing in a diamond or metals mine collapse. The fact that the end product is burned for energy is does not create a defining grouping for disasters across different technologies as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I am not assuming good faith with Nopetro. I interacted with him before his indef ban. Hell, I largely got him banned by blowing the whistle on what he was doing and refusing to let it drop. I know what he tried to do here, in fact, to his credit, he never much tried to hide it. This is another example of him using Wikipedia to advance his pet agenda. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for more fun, see the CfD now underway for Category:Fossil fuel phase out, below. Disasters, phase outs, declines, whatever. Nopetro's scheme was to throw as much of his POV rubbish into this project as possible to see what he could get away with, regardless of the damage done. It's taken months to clean up and we're clearly still not done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll hazard a comment that most of these roll up into Category:Fossil fuels. So why do we need to have this category? The name of the category is POV since it implies that the fossil fuels are the cause of the disaster. However in many of these cases, it is human error or mechanical failure that caused the disaster and the fossil fuels were what was ignited as a result of other influences. So the fuel was not itself the cause of the disaster and hence does not make this intersection defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 11 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:Coal mining companies of the United States[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Coal mining companies of the United States to Category:Coal companies of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No clear distinction between these categories, significant overlapping. As 'coal companies' is a wider term including also coal trading companies withoutmining activities, I propose to merge this way but it is acceptable also merging vice versa. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another duplicate category from Mac/Nopetro, created with typically little regard for the fact that an adequate category had previously been created and populated (by the CfD nominator, in fact). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 5 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:Hybrid electric trucks[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. Courcelles 02:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Hybrid electric trucks to Category:Hybrid trucks
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Hybrid trucks and Category:Hybrid electric vehicles. WP:SMALLCAT. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and as another pointless Mac/Nopetro splinter category. The vehicles in the target category are hybrid electric trucks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 5 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:Road pollution pricing schemes[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. Courcelles 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Road pollution pricing schemes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:SMALLCAT. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 17:15, 4 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:Fossil fuel phase out[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. Courcelles 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fossil fuel phase out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Small category. Most of entries are about different organizations without mentioning fossil fuels phase-out. The only article belonging in this category is Making Sweden an Oil-Free Society. Beagel (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't believe we missed this one, which is at the very heart of Mac's next incarnation as User:Nopetro ("No petroleum"). Other similar soapbox cats from him -- particularly Category:Nuclear phase-out, per his last sock ID User:Nudecline -- have similarly been deleted and this bit of rubbish should follow promptly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 6 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:Alternative energy economics[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:Alternative energy economy. These articles are all about economies, not economics.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alternative energy economics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Although it may be an useful category, right now it is just a collection of different renewable energy, energy conservation and organizations articles not related to the economics. It also missing a main article or clear guidelines for inclusion. It seems that the best solution may be deletion and recreation when there will be actual articles about the alternative energy economics. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this survived a cfd in 2008. It has 3 substantial subcats, each with main articles, such as Category:Hydrogen economy, so maybe a slight change of name would suffice ('economics' to 'economy' perhaps). Occuli (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may work, but what about the parent categories? Beagel (talk) 17:02, 4 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:America's Next Top Model spin-offs[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:America's Next Top Model spin-offs to Category:Top Model series
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Top Model series article, similar to Idol series and its category. ApprenticeFan work 12:47, 4 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.

Greek politicians[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 all. Courcelles 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Greek French Party politicians[edit]
Category:Greek Liberal Party politicians[edit]
Category:Greek Russian Party politicians[edit]
Category:New Party (1873) politicians[edit]
Category:Coalition of the Left, of Movements and Ecology politicians[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Greek French Party politicians to Category:French Party (Greece) politicians
Propose renaming Category:Greek Liberal Party politicians to Category:Liberal Party (Greece) politicians
Propose renaming Category:Greek Russian Party politicians to Category:Russian Party (Greece) politicians
Propose renaming Category:New Party (1873) politicians to Category:New Party (Greece) politicians
Propose renaming Category:Coalition of the Left, of Movements and Ecology politicians to Category:Synaspismós politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the names of these categories to the relevant article names, which are now at French Party (Greece), Liberal Party (Greece), Russian Party (Greece), New Party (Greece), and Synaspismós. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname as nom. Without this one would not be sure if this was about politics in France or Greece (for first item). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 6 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.

Finnish politicians[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Finnish Left Alliance politicians to Category:Left Alliance (Finland) politicians
Propose renaming Category:Finnish Social Democratic politicians to Category:Social Democratic Party of Finland politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggesting using proper names of the parties, per Left Alliance (Finland) and Social Democratic Party of Finland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:25, 4 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.

Estonian politicians by party[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 all. Courcelles 02:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of these categories are used to group politicians. I suggest renaming these to the standard format of "POLITICAL PARTY politicians", using the names of the articles about the parties in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:22, 4 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.

Slovak politicians by party[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 all. Courcelles 02:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of these categories are used to group politicians. I suggest renaming these to the standard format of "POLITICAL PARTY politicians", using the names of the articles about the parties in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:58, 4 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:Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity[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: speedy deleted WP:CSD#C1 as a category unpopulated for over four days. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Complete WP:BOLLOCKS. See also the related AfD of Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category, which is not a category in the usual sense. (The article Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity is at least an article.) The category has probably always been empty, so a passing admin could doubtless delete it speedily. Occuli (talk) 11:51, 4 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:Compressed air vehicle manufacturers[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 Category:Compressed air power and Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Compressed air vehicle manufacturers to both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Up merge to both parents. OC small. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there is but one article in the source category, which I believe was created by banned user Mac. This splinter cat is not necessary at this time, and probably, never. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 04:29, 4 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:Carbon emissions trading schemes in the European Union[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 as nominated, without prejudice to restructuring in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Carbon emissions trading schemes in the European Union to Category:Carbon emissions in the European Union
Category:Carbon emissions trading schemes to Category:Emissions trading
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Schemes has a negative connotation. I would also find it acceptable we up merged to both parents or renamed to Category:Carbon emissions trading in the European Union. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_4&oldid=1138393635"