Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 11 July 13 >

July 12[edit]

Category:Featured Japan-related pictures[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 per Occuli's solution. Courcelles (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Featured Japan-related pictures to Category:Japan featured pictures Category:Japan-related featured pictures
Nominator's rationale: Per an emerging consensus and slightly better wording. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can go with that. I was cleaning up Category:Featured pictures and I saw a sort of a pattern. There are a few others at Category:Featured pictures by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other cats in Category:Featured pictures by country are Category:Australian featured pictures and Category:Indian featured pictures. Continuing that theme, I propose renaming to Category:Japanese featured pictures, as "Japanese" is the demonym listed at Japan.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:22, 17 July 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:Vehicle categories[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. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Vehicle categories to Category:Vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Seems to me that this is a particularly pointless category, even by Nopetro's standards. We of course already classify vehicles in a tree of categories. The sole article Vehicle category lists as an "international classification of vehicle categories," types M through O, without being too clear on who came up with this ranking. The article probably ought to be renamed, and the category deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. I don't see us needing a category for this. (talk) 20:48, 12 July 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:Temporary Wikipedian userpages[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. Consensus was clear that this category was not beneficial. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Properly cleaning this category is mind-numbingly tedious and of little benefit, improperly cleaning it (via unchecked mass-deletion) leads to problems like users who were subsequently unblocked (but the admin forgot to clear the category) having their user/talk pages deleted. Deleting the pages does not save space, or offer any particular benefit. I've left notes at three of the venues where this was previously discussed pointing here. –xenotalk 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions -
  • Comment. I agree with the nomination. There are however some userpages which should be deleted after a set time (like a user-PROD). The specific examples I'm thinking of are offensive usernames, naïve indef-blocked minors, editors with real names, editors who created articles about themselves, and other editors who didn't realise what they were getting into, who have their deletions and record of mistakes otherwise permanently listed on their talk page associated with their real-life identity. I'm not talking about meaningful talk page histories, just the typical stuff that'll get them indef'd fairly quickly before they walk away realising they've made a mistake. We often get people returning (that is emailing us) after a while wondering why they've got a bad reputation high in the Google results for their name. It's useful to keep their pages around for a short while for transparency, but there are definitely users where we want to invoke their right to vanish for them, for their benefit and ours. They should not be routinely deleted, but some mechanism with a time delay could be useful where experienced editors consider that it would be appropriate. I for one would certainly delete them out of process with IAR if there was no such mechanism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a CSD criterion for some of the cases you mention, but it would have to be more precise than that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk pages shouldn't show up in Google, so that concern would speak only to user pages and I concur with Martin above. –xenotalk 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The no-index is not as magical as some are led to believe. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the nominator. There is little benefit to deleting these pages. They may serve as a useful record in the future, and I am not persuaded by the WP:DENY arguments. Therefore this category should be deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saw this page listed on the CSD talk page. I agree that deleting these user pages serves no conceivable useful purpose, except under the circumstances listed by zzuuzz. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict the scope of the category. The only time I ever messed with this, my experience jived with Xeno's statement above, I spent days looking for the type of pages I was intending to delete, namely user and talk pages of accounts with highly offensive usernames containing obscenity and/or personal attacks. And I looked at every single one of them before deleting to make sure the blocked user had been given at least a month to reply to the block. It was incredibly tedious, but in point of fact I think that particular application of this cat is a worthwhile enterprise. If those types of usernames were the only thing in it it would be waaaaay easier to clear it out. If it's use was restricted to templates relating to username hardblocks that might do the trick. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea - perhaps a different category serving a similar purpose could be included with the username block templates. –xenotalk 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages for Wikipedians blocked by username or the shorter Category:Temporary Wikipedian username pages would do for this purpose. I would support moving qualifying pages to the new category and date-coding the current category to ease the administrative burden of closely examining the contents of the current category.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of these pages are harmless. The ones that really need to be deleted are few and far between and are typically picked out by hand before anyone gets to cleaning out the category. Mr.Z-man 01:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That statement directly contradicts my personal experience. I sifted through several thousand pages a few months ago and found at least 200 pages that needed to go. For example User talk:CoonDayNigg, User talk:Brentsucksdick, and User talk:An admín bit off my pénís were all in there, and that just the in the first three letters of the alphabet. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why those really need to go. They're a little offensive, but they don't name a specific person. Usernames like those are never going to be unblocked though, so there's really no loss by just deleting the page right away. Mr.Z-man 22:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate place to mention, but I believe the page User:Badagnani should be restored, partially to aid in transparency (the user was a prolific contributor, and noted his major additions on his userpage), and partially because the user himself has requested restoration. Afaik, there was nothing inappropriate at the page, and deleting it has no benefit. Hopefully this is also relevant to the above discussion. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A case in point, I've restored the page and marked both the user and talk page as historical to avoid the category. This is a symptom of both this category and non-admins adding indefblocked templates when they should leave it up to admins who will set the right parameters or simply leave the pages be... –xenotalk 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xeno is right, this category and the deletions carried out by having it amounts to busywork in the best case and removes important traces of blocked users in the worst. Those few cases where deletion has any benefit (other than keeping some admin busy) are usually covered by existing speedy criteria and can be deleted without having this category. The rest - just leave it. Maybe it becomes useful again to have them (to track some blocked user's contributions for example) and if not it won't be a problem as well? Regards SoWhy 11:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and unlink, going through all pages is tedious, as taking less care will (and has) deleted important tracks and discussions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record in case I was not entirely clear with my earlier remarks, I do not agree with the wholesale deletions of anything in this category that have been going on the last few days and I fully support this category being removed from {{indefblocked}} at the very least. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there may be specific reasons for deleting some User pages, but this shouldn't simply be because the User is indefinitely blocked. Where a blocked user has played a significant role in developing an article there may be important exchanges on the user page from the user that aren't invalidated by the blocking and also from other contributors to the articles the blocked user has been involved in. Opbeith (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deleting these pages serves no real purpose and it is pretty easy to mistakenly delete a page that has some use for the encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 00:57, 20 July 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:Businesspeople in media[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. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Businesspeople in media to Category:Media industry businesspeople
Nominator's rationale: The term "Businesspeople in media" is a little ambiguous, imo, and would benefit from this rename to make it clearer that we are not talking about media representations of businesspeople. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per nomination. Current title is ambiguous. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Makes good sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 12 July 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.

Christmas albums by artist[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/delete as nominated.. More manual work, fun awaits for your friendly neighbourhood closer... Courcelles (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Christmas albums by artist
Propose upmerging Category:Sufjan Stevens Christmas albums to Category:Sufjan Stevens albums and Category:Christmas albums by American artists
Propose upmerging Category:John Denver Christmas albums to Category:John Denver albums and Category:Christmas albums by American artists]
Propose upmerging Category:Mannheim Steamroller Christmas albums to Category:Mannheim Steamroller albums and Category:Christmas albums by American artists
Nominator's rationale: This is a triple intersection (artist name, genre, format), and we have no precedent for that as this discussion on Johnny Cash gospel albums illustrates. Note that I have no problem with Category:Christmas albums by artist nationality, just the ones that break an individual artist's releases into multiple genre-specific categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent I totally agree with deleting the triple intersection of album/artist/genre (as, of course, I was the nominator of the Johnny Cash category above), so if you view these Christmas albums by artist as a genre of music, they should be deleted on that basis, but if you view these as a conceptual album series, then they could be kept. For instance, the John Denver albums are just a handful of albums that he recorded which are composed of Christmas music; the Sufjan Stevens albums might be considered a series of concept albums and there are some other categories of this type (e.g. Category:Mannheim Steamroller Fresh Aire albums or Category:ProjeKcts.) If you're in favor of deleting categories of concept album series, then we could have that discussion, but I do think that this is a compelling reason to keep any Christmas album series which are essentially a series of concept albums (note also that Category:Christmas albums is under Category:Concept albums.) Does that make sense to anyone else? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable position. Along those lines, I saw Category:Mannheim Steamroller Fresh Aire albums and didn't necessarily think it should be upmerged, but I might eventually. Nonetheless, I think it's generally a mistake to categorize this way; for example, despite having more Christmas observances than the Korean War itself, there's no Category:M*A*S*H Christmas episodes. So I'd still upmerge them all. None of these artists have so many albums that we won't see the Christmas ones right away.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, there is also Category:Paul McCartney classical albums. On another sidenote, I wouldn't agree that all Christmas albums are concept albums. Is Christmas (Kimberley Locke album), an artist just covering old Christmas songs (which so many Christmas albums are), really conceptual? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response For what it's worth, Wikipedia (currently) says that a concept album is "unified by a theme, which can be instrumental, compositional, narrative, or lyrical" which seems to apply to Christmas music and Christmas albums per se. Am I missing something? Wouldn't an album of music for Halloween parties or an album with songs telling the story of Easter be a concept album as well? In part, the difficult is that Christmas music is so extensive as to constitute a genre of music whereas (e.g.) Arbor Day has very little music associated with it. Curiouser and curiouser... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated the Paul McCartney category on the July 13 CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All as these are the defining characteristic of these albums and allows navigation between these related articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom – there is no need to create all possible intersections of categories. Occuli (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominated. The subcategories of Category:Christmas albums by artist nationality covers these well. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The finer we make categories the less of a useful navigation tool they become. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 21 July 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:Cyclists killed while racing[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. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cyclists killed while racing to Category:Cyclists who died while racing
Nominator's rationale: "Killed" doesn't include all those who died due to actions of their own accord (like drug overdose, falling off while no one else was around etc). SeveroTC 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And to say one was killed and did not 'simply' die leads to an extra unnecessary layer of inquiry for our catting Mayumashu (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - what about Category:Cyclists who died while cycling? - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Killed" implies something different from "died"; "died" has the meaning we want. Bart133 t c @ 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What level of professionalism should the decedent sport cyclist have in order to be included in this category, and should we include "sport" in the name or remove it from the category page?   — Jeff G. ツ 22:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think that, if the cyclist was notable enough for a Wikipedia article as an athlete (not e.g. an actor who died in an amateur cycling race), they'd be professional enough to appear in the category. Bart133 t c @ 18:38, 19 July 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:Muslim given names[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: administrative close: speedily deleted as an empty category. Can be re-created without prejudice because of procedure breakdown. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muslim given names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, pointless category, all the names that would go in there would already be better arranged in many other categories such as Arabic given names or Turkish given names categories. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- currently empty, and listed for Speedy. Some names will be multi-language, but these can easily have multiple categories. They will probably fundamentally be Arabic names, since the Islamic scriptures are in the Arabic language. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Category was emptied by nominator and tagged for Speedy Deletion before taking it to CFD -- not in accord with proper CFD procedure. Cgingold (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Muslim given name is supposed to be in Arabic, and supposed to be Koranic. Therefore the master variant is suitable for categorization. All variant forms should redirect to the master form, with suitable subsection in those articles. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not the same thing as Arabic names. See Arabic name for more discussion. Also note the existence of Category:Jewish given names. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:27, 14 July 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:Middle Eastern given names[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: administrative close: speedily deleted as an empty category. Can be re-created without prejudice because of procedure breakdown. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Middle Eastern given names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Again a redundant, pointless category, there's no sense in having a category again listing a huge unsorted number of Arabic, Persian or Turkish given names, which are already better sorted in their own categories. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Category was emptied by nominator and tagged for Speedy Deletion before taking it to CFD -- not in accord with proper CFD procedure. Cgingold (talk) 13:28, 13 July 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:Motor fuels[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. Nearly every fuel powers a motor of some sort. No prejudice against creation of Category:Road vehicle fuels are any similar category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Motor fuels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A rightly neglected attempt at a new category tree by banned user Mac, this category cherry picks a few fuels that can be used to drive motors or engines, as virtually all the liquid or gas fuels in the parent Category:Fuels can. Let's stick with the current category classifications and Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the intent of this category is legitimate. Category:Aviation fuels exists already, so this category would apply to (land) motor vehicles. Uncertain if boats would be included. It's not for what can theoretically fuel a vehicle so much as what already does. In that sense, it's woefully underpopulated. I removed Category:Fuel additives from it, though, as it belongs in just Category:Fuels. So, maybe it should be renamed to Category:Road vehicle fuels? It needs better definition before we go deleting it. --Vossanova o< 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment road vehicle fuels... such as diesel, petrol, CNG, LNG, hydrogen, coal, coke, wood, alcohol (ethanol, methanol, propanol), kerosene, jet fuel, AVGAS, fuel oil, propane, butane, methane, ethane, syngas, cooking oil, etc... is that all that useful? (steam cars, fuel cell cars, things designed to run off aviation fuels, etc) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:19, 15 July 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:Hormones[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: closed with no action; no categories have been tagged. This can come up again when someone tags specific categories for change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:

Nominator's rationale:
  • Category:Hormones will end up neatly split into chemical structure, functional axis, site of synthesis, site of action, hormonal agents, function, and type of organism. It may be useful to group Category:Hormones by site of synthesis and Category:Hormones by site of action into Category:Hormones by site. There are hundreds of hormones that have been described in the human body alone, and this category will be overwhelmed soon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds logical (though I am not a biochemist). However, I think you need to create and populate your new categories and then renominate your old categories for deletion (and possibly new ones for renaming) to achieve your objective. You cannot expect the closing admin to do so much manual adjustment. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment did you bring this up at the medical and biochemistry wikiprojects? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This proposal requires careful scrutiny and evaluation from knowledgable editors. It's a little bit outside of my areas of greatest expertise, but as soon as I can find the time I would like to contribute my personal assessment to the discussion. In any event, it clearly needs to be relisted for further consideration. Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 20 July 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:U.S. military sex scandals[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. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:U.S. military sex scandals to Category:United States military sex scandals
Nominator's rationale: Rename expand the abbreviation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:54, 12 July 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:Waste facilities[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. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Waste facilities to Category:Waste processing sites
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplication of already existing category with more precise title. Beagel (talk) 08:20, 12 July 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:Bivalent vehicles[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. No prejudice against creation of a different category to include vehicles with bivalent engine types.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bivalent vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Under populated and likely mislabeled category. Vehicles are not bivalent, engines are. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 12 July 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:Amorphous silicon[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. — ξxplicit 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amorphous silicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be one of those categories used to classify companies that use a particular chemical that is solar related. Clearly not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 12 July 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 independence[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) 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Energy independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created by banned user Mac/Nopetro, this very US-centric microcategory with four articles related to the chimeric goal of energy "independence" for the United States looks even smaller when one sees that North American energy independence has been proposed for merger into United States energy independence. A classic example of WP:SMALLCAT, with the articles already well categorized elsewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I removed Russia in the European energy sector from this category, as it made no mention of the concept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created prior to his ban, so I don't think WP:CSD#G5 applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The puppeteer has been blocked since 17:51, 10 November 2008. The category was created 07:47, 29 January 2009. Perhaps the sockpuppetry was unproven? In any case, the nomination is sound. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see. Yes, we've since stated that Nopetro is Mac and so this category -- and all creations of Nukeless, Nopetro and Nudecline -- can be speedied accordingly. Hmm. Vegaswikian, is that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I generally stay out of the ban enforcement processing. I'd have to do a lot of research. Maybe another admin knows. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think that all categories should be speedy deleted. Yes, he created a mess with categories and redirects, but some of them are valid and useful. I agree it is lot of work to go through all this mess, but at the end of the day a case-by-case approach would be more beneficial. Beagel (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fine by me. I guess another advantage is; if we discuss each one in a CfD, we can speedy it the next time if it's recreated... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 12 July 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:Green-collar workers[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) 00:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Green-collar workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created by banned user Mac, none of the articles in this category are about actual Green collar workers -- although we do have two main articles that should be merged (one is never enough in the renewable energy field, it seems). The title is misleading and it's the usual arbitrary assortment of stuff from this indef blocked user. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me? --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you notable? And are there many of you who are notable as green collar workers rather than something else? - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:17, 19 July 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_July_12&oldid=1138393972"