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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Technical nomination. Found doing cleanup as an apparent incomplete nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure what's going on here. This is one of 5 sub-cats of Category:Sculptures by country, all recently created by the same editor. Perhaps he can enlighten us -- I'm gonna notify him/her about this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen that there is a parent cat. Category:Sculpture by region (Italy is not a region) before I created the cat. Now we have indeed two categories for the same topic. I would suggest to delete/merge to Category:Italian sculpture (redir.?) because categories in the English language Wikipedia edition should be plural. --Scriberius (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No: "sculpture" is for general articles, "sculptures" for individual ones. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are not the same, and for some countries - eg the US & UK - the differences are much larger than for Italy, which has nearly always only exported sculpture. Veiled Rebecca is an Italian sculpture that is not in Italy. Both categories and trees could be much better populated, & I can see a role for both category trees. We have both Category:American sculpture and its sub Category:Sculptures in the United States - it would be most unwise to merge these. I have added cats like Category:Outdoor sculptures in France, some already very large, to this tree, which makes more sense of them, and also 2 museum sub-cats. If you are going to set up new categories please think it through & research what existing ones can be added; what is the point of setting up Category:Sculptures in Vatican City and not adding the large Category:Sculptures of the Vatican Museums? Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- they are not the same. One is about sculptures by Italians; the other about ones located in Italy. Sculpture is a collective noun so that a plural does not seem necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 27 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.
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. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No need for the category to differ from the main article. — ξxplicit 00:38, 24 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.
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:Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 15:49, 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.
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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I was able to find another article for this category but I still think it will qualify under OC small. With a single parent, up merging seems like a logical option. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 22 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.
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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The contents are frankensteined back fill lists of a type that have been deleted before through AfD. - J Greb (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any articles survive PROD, merge to Category:Batman lists. Not that I believe that any of these articles should survive but if they do then the lists category is the best place for them. Otto4711 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles in the category have been deleted through PROD and the category can be deleted as empty. Otto4711 (talk) 16:34, 23 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.
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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. There is only non-Warners studio film (with a couple of serials), so these can be safely upmerged. And since DC is owned by Warners, it's highly unlikely that any other studio will be producing Batman films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Seems like a very unneeded case of fine graning here. - J Greb (talk) 21:19, 16 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.
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. I'll review the contents afterward to remove any musicians who don't fit the term blue-eyed soul. — ξxplicit 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It appears the person who created the category (who has since been blocked indefinitely) was trying to create a modernized definition of the term, "pop soul". I am not against deletion of the category, but I think the category could exist with a "blue-eyed soul" definition with properly categorized articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:40, 16 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.
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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This ambiguous name has resulted in albums from the Hillsong Church that were released on different labels (e.g. I Believe the Promise) categorized here. This needs to be split between the label Hillsong Music and the Hillsong Church as the artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 22 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Before the Great Populated Places Migration of 2010, this ports nomination didn't gain any consensus on a plan. Now that "settlements" has been mostly eliminated from the category tree, and the structure "cities and towns" has been endorsed as a valid one, it seems logical to move the "Port settlements" categories to "Port cities and towns". If this passes, then it's possible we might even want to move all "Port cities" categories to "Port cities and towns" categories to be more inclusive. But that's another nomination, maybe. For now, this simple change seems a positive one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am not convinced that it is proper to create categories that are named and encourage listing different types of place in one category. In this case cities and towns. I have less of an objection when they could be justified as we have seen in some places where the translation from the local mean both. But not here. We have to get away from combining city and town since it creates issues, including making articles to justify this mess and making parenting this categories incorrect. If they have a common local name then use it. But somehow I don't think this is it. I never heard anyone talk about the port cities and towns in Florida. If we have both, then we just need to subcategories. The discussion mentioned is not a good one to base this on since it included categories that clearly should not have been renamed (cities in). Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to other suggestions that eliminate the word "settlements."--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can only speak for Oregon, but I much preferred the category when it was "Port cities in Oregon", because Oregon's municipalities are all cities, and everything else is an unincorporated community aka a "populated place". There are no officially designated towns; the word "town" in articles only appears as a subjective description of the size of the community. It also just so happens that in Oregon the only places that have port authorities are cities. Adding "towns" to the Oregon category would create less clarity, not more. So if you want consistency across the board, I don't think changing the port categories to "cities and towns" is the way to do it. If you can tolerate inconsistency, the categories should be tailored to each state's official municipality names. If a state has port authorities in its cities as well as its towns, villages, hamlets, what have you, make a separate category for each if only because sooner or later, someone is going to do so anyway. If for some reason there are port authorities in unincorporated communities, I'd say forget the whole thing and keep the cat at "settlements". Katr67 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to those, or any other category in which someone can demonstrate that only cities or towns are present.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington category includes unincorporated places so it should not be moved. I suspect that we would have complete consensus to leave most of these alone and simply create subcategories for the cities and towns. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 30 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.
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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:45, 22 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename both. — ξxplicit 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:46, 22 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.
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 and merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge 'based in' category to the standard form of the 'companies of' category tree. It is overcategorization to categorize companies by where they operate, so delete the 'operating in' category. (No articles will be left uncategorized). Tassedethe (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom. We recently deleted the categories for companies "operating in" the West Bank. There seems to be no appetite to categorize based on where a company operates, for good reason. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 22 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.
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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink label with just a redirect in the category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since label lacks an article and only content is a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:40, 16 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.
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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Companies are not categorised by the specific type of payment options they offer. Tassedethe (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is not always clear which mobile companies should categorized and which not. Beagel (talk) 18:50, 22 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:Historical characters in Wuxia fiction[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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization, irrelevant to the listed subjects. Most of those people have been used as characters in hundreds if not thousands of fictional works, which makes the relation unsuitable for categories. Also compare a recently deleted analog case. --Latebird (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is strikingly similar to that other category. As I said in that CFD, a clear analog to performer-by-performance categories. Cgingold (talk) 08:51, 16 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:Solar electricity 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Seeing the name, one would assume that this is a useful category about companies producing solar electricity. Well, that is not what this is being used for. It is for companies that produce items that can be used by others to build systems that can be used to generate electricity from solar. Better to delete and start over. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a problem with the parents. These are most semiconductor manufactures. To extend this to say they are solar energy company is just wrong in my mind. Does being a system designer, financier or installer make a company one? How about providing related services? That's why I think deletion is the better choice. At some point this should make sense. If someone wants to clear out the current articles and then repopulate if we have sufficient articles to correctly populate that is OK to. But takes a lot of work and runs the risk of emptying the category while it is being discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per cgingold no reason to delete; this constitutes a valid set of compnpanies producing a common set of products: those used for solar energy. This will then not only include 'solar electricity', but also 'solar thermal' etc, as the grandparent Category:Solar energy contains. No reason to further differentiate companies at this point. Not so many of them Hmains (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but I am not sure if the solution proposed by Cgingold is the best as we still have a problem with semiconductor manufactures listed in this category. Otherwise, support per Hmains. Beagel (talk) 18:54, 22 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:Compilation albums of New Zealand music[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 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 22 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename both. — ξxplicit 00:38, 24 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.
