Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9 December 11 >

December 10[edit]

Category:Nontrinitarian denominations[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: keep. Category:Antitrinitarianism was not nominated, so its renaming cannot be evaluated properly. Feel free to do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose re-naming to Category:Nontrinitarian denominations to Category:Non-Trinitarianism
Proposer's rationale The category contains material newly merged from Category:Non Trinitarianism. The effect of the merger has been to widen the scope of the category. It is no longer confined to denominations. It now includes doctrinal definitions, history and a lot of weighty "isms". The proposed name is a more accurate reflection of its current character. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have moved the proposal re Non-Trinitarianism per User Occuli's procedural advice. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Talk:Nontrinitarianism; and
  2. Category talk:Nontrinitarian denominations; and
  3. Category talk:Antitrinitarianism; and
  4. the 2010-12-20 thread.
Also, recommend to retain Category:Nontrinitarian denominations; and move specific denomination articles (eg .....) into Category:Nontrinitarian denominations. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw my proposal in favour of user AuthorityTam's suggestion above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:56, 28 December 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:London actors[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. Kbdank71 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:London actors to Category:Actors from London
Nominator's rationale: All other categories in are titled "Actors from x" (per this). Lugnuts (talk) 20:50, 10 December 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.

Beat writers and poets[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. Kbdank71 17:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beat writers to Category:Beat Generation writers
Propose renaming Category:Beat poets to Category:Beat Generation poets
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent, Category:Beat Generation, and to add clarity. "Beat poet" probably isn't very ambiguous, but "beat writer" is also a term used in journalism. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, to remove ambiguity and duplication. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is effectively a merger request now, as another editor created both of the target categories after I posted this CFR. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 14 December 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:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 8. Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Previous CfD closed with consensus for renaming but with no consensus as to the new name. Relisting as suggested. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Rename (Requires article moves): Category: Lists of U.S. locations by ethnic majority would desribe most but not all of the articles in the current cat. But this would require some articles not about majorities like this one or this one to be moved to Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United States (or subcats) so maybe there's a better rename out there.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Large" is POV. Actually every place has a 100% ehtnic population, assuming that every one has an ethnicity. I assume we are talking about places with a "non-European ethnic majority"; if so the category name should be along those lines. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noted in the original CfD that the concept of "ethnic populations" is problematic and is perhaps the result of the widespread tendency for people to use the word "ethnic" only to refer to ethnic minorities. I should have probably reposted that here before now. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though they are not all non-European. There are Polish and Hungarian articles in the category. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a difficult one. RevelationDirect's suggestion makes the most sense. Categories of ethnic majorities is clear and precise. The "large population" categories should be move to the "ethnic enclaves" category or deleted. On the other hand, as Cordless Larry mentions, using "ethnic" to refer only to "ethnic minorities" is problematic, unless we're going to create List of U.S. cities with majority WASP populations or List of U.S. cities with majority anglophone populations, or what have you. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "ethnic enclave" is appropriate for the category name, because the simple fact that a community has a large number of a particular ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean that they all live together in a "neighbourhood, district, or suburb which retains some cultural distinction." postdlf (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Lists of U.S. locations with majority ethnic populations or Category:Lists of United States locations with majority ethnic populations with the latter preferred since it follows naming conventions. At present there is no clear best solution, but this would be an improvement. This addresses some of the problems and does not prevent a future rename if a better name surfaces. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (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:Byzantine secular architecture[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Byzantine secular architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneccesary category, WP:OC, articles should be merged into Category:Byzantine architecture and this deleted. --K1eyboard (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this opinion stricken. My browser seems not to support the strikethrough function.
  • Strong Oppose The scheme has Category:Byzantine sacred architecture with 71 churches, monasteries etc, and this. Why nominate one & not the other? Given the minute categorization of more modern and European architecture/buildings, the case needs to be made much better that this is OCAT. I don't see it. The category is well-populated with several sub-cats & articles in the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Relisted because category wasn't tagged.
Category:Religious architecture is the head of that tree. Sacred is a standard term used in this way in art history; but that category is not in the nomination. Heaven knows what exists elsewhere in this huge tree; that doesn't concern me much compared to whether it makes sense here. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see I've convinced you, but please strike your support above! Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 11 December 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:To Kill a Mockingbird[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 Category:To Kill a Mockingbird characters into Category:To Kill a Mockingbird. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:To Kill a Mockingbird (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One of the three articles is Harper Lee and this is a subcat. (the only one--probably the only one ever) of Category:Novels by Harper Lee. The subcat of this has only two articles in it. Simply put, there isn't enough content to warrant a category for this novel, unless possibly the subcat. is merged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:To Kill a Mockingbird characters into Category:To Kill a Mockingbird. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Rough consensus was to merge Category:To Kill a Mockingbird characters into Category:To Kill a Mockingbird, but Category:To Kill a Mockingbird characters wasn't tagged, so I'm relisting this. --Kbdank71 15:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The three existing articles plus the two character articles would bring the cat up to five. And I moved two additional articles into the cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 11 December 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:Eras by medium[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:Periods by medium. I and others don't see Category:Beat Generation by medium as being quite in line with the rest of the contents, but I'm not sure where else to put it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eras by medium to Category:something

Nominator's rationale: Stefanomione has also to date selected three brief cultural periods in the U.S. (of vastly differing importance). He's called them "eras" -- which I suppose they can be in the most colloquial sense, per Era#Colloquial "eras" -- and grouped works related to each. No doubt he plans to expand to more such "eras." Before he does, I'd like to see if there could be a more precise name. For one, I think the whole thing is backward: seems to me that he's grouping Media by "era," not the other way around. Shawn in Montreal(talk) 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Comment: How about Category:Time periods by medium. Parent can be Category:History by period. --Pnm (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the included subcategories are historical periods. The third is a literary movement. They're not equivalent things. Even setting that aside, I'm failing to see the point to grouping these together. postdlf (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Postdlf that "history" would be misleading. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • that wasn't postdlf's point, so nevermind. anyway, my preference would be periods without the word time, if pnm's !vote becomes the choice. time is too precise a term it seems to me, for such terms as "beat generation" --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something. Actually each sub-cat does seem useful, & I suppose they should have a head-cat. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 13 December 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:Documentary films about the Beat Generation[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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Documentary films about the Beat Generation
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 10 December 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:Texts by format[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. Kbdank71 18:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Texts by format (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Stefanomione has again offered up a parallel category tree. There is no parent Category:Texts. Category contents are already adequately contained within Category:Literature. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I do not see a convincing reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 17 December 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:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs[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. Kbdank71 18:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Due to the possible problems caused by the last mass nom, these will be sent through one at a time. Courcelles 04:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is 'the worst song written for a film in the previous year'. Is it 'defining' for the song (which will have generally had a rich and varied life outside the film and in other years, and perhaps in recordings by other artists)? 2 of the 3 song articles in the category do not even mention the award so it's difficult to make a case for 'defining'. Occuli (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining and trivial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So the song is in a movie and it's bad according to the award? This one is trivial.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see this one as being defining for those included. The "worst picture" Razzie is probably defining, but not these relatively obscure categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then delete -- This is an award category, albeit an award for infamity, not success. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 16 December 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:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Due to the possible problems caused by the last mass nom, these will be sent through one at a time. Courcelles 04:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this sounds to me like a defining characteristic of a film and is mentioned in the random sample of articles which I checked. (I agree with the deletion of the 'people' categories. It is not defining for an actor to have made one 'bad' performance out of many. If there is a 'lifetime' Razzie that might be different.) Occuli (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining and trivial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, noteworthy and this is indeed a defining characteristic that is widely discussed in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic of these films, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know—I can't see this one as being defining for those included. The "worst picture" Razzie is probably defining, but not these relatively obscure categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete as usual for award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 16 December 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:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Due to the possible problems caused by the last mass nom, these will be sent through one at a time. Courcelles 04:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feeble keep – this seems a bit more tangential than those above and below. I note that Rambo: First Blood Part II does mention a host of such awards that it garnered, deservedly IMO. (What, Stallone might not be a great actor? People will be dissing Schwarzenegger next.) Occuli (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award may be "notable," but at the category level, it remains non-defining and trivial for the works that received it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The screenplay is central to the movie so this category is defining.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, central aspect of film, noteworthy and significantly discussed in WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic of these films, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know—I can't see this one as being defining for those included. The "worst picture" Razzie is probably defining, but not these relatively obscure categories. It's notable, but not defining for the recipients. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 14 December 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:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners[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: keep. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]
Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Due to the possible problems caused by the last mass nom, these will be sent through one at a time. Courcelles 04:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this does sounds like a defining characteristic of a film. Occuli (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fans of the films may not like it, but the awards are notable and this category is appropriate. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award may be "notable," but at the category level, it remains non-defining and trivial for the works that received it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, at the very least, I agree with keeping in this case. Revelation's positive vs negative point is well taken. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Best Picture Academy Award winners is listed on each movie article. This one should be as well.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (Clarification: Now that I've gone through the other nominations, I don't favor keeping every Raspberry cat that mirros an Academy Award cat. But, for defining catgories, we shouldn't include a positive cat and exclude a negative one.)RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significantly discussed, noteworthy, multiple and sustained discussion in many WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic of these films, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one is probably defining, but not the other relatively obscure categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete as usual for award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 16 December 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:Hallenberg[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hallenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. One-voiced category for a tiny German village. IMHO redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 02:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is work in progress and more existing and new articles will be added. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is no 'overarching established category tree' for this small place (population 4000). Category:Towns in North Rhine-Westphalia should be a list category for articles about towns, not a gathering of subcats for towns (which include articles about non-towns, eg buildings, churches). This is exactly the sort of eponymous category which should be deleted - it will collect together a hotch-potch of articles vaguely related to Hallenberg with no clear inclusion criteria. Same goes for all the others, correctly listed by Dэя. Occuli (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. These categories have been created as part of WikiProject Germany to translate articles from German Wikipedia and, in such cases, we use their category structure because it is logical. These town categories have a clear inclusion criterion i.e. anything that falls within the town boundary, typically villages, hills, lakes, buildings and places of interest. This one currently has only one of the 13 German articles translated, so could be hidden for now until more appear. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see Bermicourt. --Cvf-ps (talk) 09:08, 11 December 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:Odenthal[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Odenthal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with 2 voices for a little German municipality. IMHO redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 01:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is work in progress and more existing and new articles will be added. These categories have been created as part of WikiProject Germany to translate articles from German Wikipedia and, in such cases, we use their category structure because it is logical. This one currently has 3 of the 8 German articles translated; more will follow in due course. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above. Occuli (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see Bermicourt and category Hallenberg above. --Cvf-ps (talk) 09:09, 11 December 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.

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation[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 as no objections noted. Kbdank71 18:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation of Ontario MPPs to Category:Ontario Co-operative Commonwealth Federation MPPs
Propose renaming Category:Alberta Cooperative Commonwealth MLAs to Category:Alberta Co-operative Commonwealth Federation MLAs
Propose renaming Category:British Columbia CCF MLAs to Category:British Columbia Co-operative Commonwealth Federation MLAs
Propose renaming Category:Nova Scotia CCF MLAs to Category:Nova Scotia Co-operative Commonwealth Federation MLAs
Propose renaming Category:Manitoba CCF MLAs to Category:Manitoba Co-operative Commonwealth Federation MLAs
Propose renaming Category:Saskatchewan CCF MLAs to Category:Saskatchewan Co-operative Commonwealth Federation MLAs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories are all in a variety of formats. I suggest standardizing the names to match the main article Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 10 December 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:Wittingen[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wittingen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with 3 voices for a little German municipality. Dэя-Бøяg 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've found and added a 4th voice. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is work in progress and is now up to 8 articles. These categories have been created as part of WikiProject Germany to translate articles from German Wikipedia and, in such cases, we use their category structure because it is logical. --Bermicourt --Bermicourt (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I change my vote. Today i have found 8 articles. By now, IMHO, it could be saved. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:19, 11 December 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:Sankt Andreasberg[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sankt Andreasberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with 3 articles for a tiny German village. IMHO redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 00:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the reasons shown. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is work in progress and now has 7 articles. These categories have been created as part of WikiProject Germany to translate articles from German Wikipedia and, in such cases, we use their category structure because it is logical. --Bermicourt --Bermicourt (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I change my vote. Today i've found 7 articles, and i've created a subcategory for people. For me, IMHO, it could be saved. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:35, 11 December 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:Braunlage[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Braunlage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with only 3 voices for a little German village. IMHO redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the reasons shown. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem here was that the category had not been properly populated with the relevant articles. I have now corrected this and it now has 9 articles with potentially another 8 to follow as part of WikiProject Germany. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I change my vote. Today there are 9 articles. For me is sufficient to keep the category. --Dэя-Бøяg 12:59, 11 December 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:Bad Salzdetfurth[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bad Salzdetfurth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with only 2 voices for a little German municipality. IMHO redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the reasons shown. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is work in progress and now has 8 articles. These categories have been created as part of WikiProject Germany to translate articles from German Wikipedia and, in such cases, we use their category structure because it is logical as we expand. --Bermicourt --Bermicourt (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I change my vote, today there are 8 articles. Considering also the town status and population, IMHO it could be saved by now. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:03, 15 December 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:Bergen (Landkreis Celle)[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bergen (Landkreis Celle) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with 3 articles for a little German municipality. IMHO reduntant. Dэя-Бøяg 00:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - For the reasons shown. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've found and added 11 pages and a subcategory. So, for me, now it could remain. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have further expaned on DerBorg's work and there are now 21 articles in the category. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 10 December 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:Dassel[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dassel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with only 3 articles for a little german village. IMHO redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the previous day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is work in progress. These categories have been created as part of WikiProject Germany to translate articles from German Wikipedia and, in such cases, we use their category structure because it is logical. This only has 3 at present, but there are up to 28 articles in this category still to be translated. --Bermicourt --Bermicourt (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 10 December 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_December_10&oldid=1166566733"