Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30[edit]

Category:Astrophysics journals[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete and merge with Category:Astronomy journals. Redundant category. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly don't seem redundant: they're categorized under two different parents, for one thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category:Astrophysics. Occuli (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough journals that are clearly in either the category "astronomy journals" or the category "astrophysics journals". The latter category will mainly or even exclusively contain articles on journals that will also need to be categorized in the "astronomy journals" cat (even though the astrophysics journals cat is a subcat of the astronomy journals cat) and, hence, is rather superfluous. --Crusio (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number is not a valid issue. There are categories with only one article (singleton categories). Even though the distinction between astronomy and astrophysics is vague, the journals with explicit reference to astrophysics in their name deserve their own category.--79.119.221.64 (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorize journals according to name. The distinction between an astronomy journal and an astrophysics journal is too blurry to be useful and accurate, especially considering that journals can be both an astronomy journal and an astrophysics one (e.g. Astronomy and Astrophysics). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:34, 3 September 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:2012 American television series endings[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A show doesn't end in 2012 unless it actually ends in 2012. The note in Category:2011 television series endings defines the category in this way as well. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reliable source for each of the articles that states they'll end in 2012? If so, I don't see this as being a problem. Lugnuts (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition of the category, articles in this category should be factual not based on anything else including references "as broadcast events can and do change frequently". Meaning, an article is added to this category after the last confirmed episode has aired. So even in the 2011 category, a show that is known to end tomorrow won't be added to the category until after it airs tomorrow because until that point the series hasn't ended yet. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can rename a category to make it factual, but it will have to pass WP:OVERCAT, which you can bet will probably not.Curb Chain (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the entrants are actual articles of endings of those shows.Curb Chain (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a source the show's ending then we'll keep the category. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 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.

Current Dutch politicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With very few exceptions, we don't subcategorize people by occupation categories into current and former status. I don't think these are significant enough to make an exception as has been done with, e.g., Category:Current national leaders. These are relatively new categories; their contents are adequately categorized as party leaders or party chairs in other categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableCurb Chain (talk) 10:22, 1 September 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.

Subcategories of Oceania (ecozone) flora[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. I can't tell whether these subregions do or do not exist, but someone should offer proof of clarity on this score. Every other flora category is defined by a geopolitical boundary. If that needs to change, it should be nominated on a global basis. However, if these categories continue to exist, many other subcategories of Category:Oceania (ecozone) flora should be removed from that category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flora of Polynesia to Category:Polynesia (subregion) flora

Propose renaming Category:Flora of Melanesia to Category:Melanesia (subregion) flora

Propose renaming Category:Flora of Micronesia to Category:Micronesia (subregion) flora

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I feel that there will be problems with the present category names because they refer to geo-political or culturally defined areas which do not necessarily coincide with the ecozone subkingdom areas. I think that users would tend to add, for instance, New Zealand flora to Flora of Polynesia because NZ is a defining part of the Polynesian triangle; and there would also be confusion over areas like Norfolk Island which is politically part of Australia or Hawaii which is politically part of the US but also a defining part of the Polynesian triangle. For similar reasons and for consistency I feel this applies to all three categories nominated here. Kahuroa (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:. The truth is that the Melanesia (subregion) flora doesn't exist and the Micronesia (subregion) flora doesn't exist but the Polynesia (subregion) flora does exist indeed, and in fact it the later was brought into discussion but as Category:Polynesian flora for renaming to Category:Flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom as we can see here: [1]--Noder4 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which begs the questions: (1) why do the category pages say: "Melanesia includes the areas in the sub-region of Melanesia, with the Flora in the Oceania ecozone." and "Flora of Micronesia, a subregion of the Oceania ecozone, comprising thousands of small islands in the western Pacific Ocean." and (2) what exactly then do these categories refer to? Kahuroa (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for the existence of those affirmations as they're incorrect, I just copied them mechanically from the recently disappeared Category:Melanesian flora and Category:Micronesian flora without noticing that they're wrong, those sentences were written there by Look2See1, thanks--Noder4 (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flora categories should, as much as possible, follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. The usage of that system is supported by WP:PLANTS. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:49, 7 September 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:Texas criminal cases[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Texas criminal cases to Category:American legal writers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The contents of the category are case reporters so either merge with American legal writers or a subcategory for legal writers from Texas. Tim! (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge I'm not going to do this out of process but the category could just be emptied and speedy-deleted. There's absolutely no good reason for these two biographical articles to be categorized as Texas criminal cases or for that matter legal writers! Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The articles in this cat are BLPs with crime cases in them so calling it "Texas criminal cases" is misleading. Also they are not really legal writers because they write on crime not law hence merging is not appropriate either. The two BLPs are already included in many crime-related and crime writers cats hence not necessary to over-cat with a narrow misleadingly titled category.--Michaela den (talk) 08:53, 7 September 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:Fictional media and journalism people[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:Fictional journalists and media people. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional media and journalism people to Category:Fictional media people and journalists

Nominator's rationale: Rename for better wording, per parent Category:Journalists Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would do "fictional journalists and media people" rather than "fictional media people and journalists". Sounds better to me. --User:Lquilter (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is better. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Lquilter's suggestion of Category:Fictional journalists and media people which does seem more euphonious. Pichpich (talk) 15:35, 2 September 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:Ephraim Kishon[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A first step would be to create Category:Films directed by Ephraim Kishon, Category:Books by Ephraim Kishon, Category:Screenplays by Ephraim Kishon. Until that problem is solved, it makes no sense to delete the current category. And once it is done, it might make sense to keep Category:Ephraim Kishon as a container category... Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 30 August 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:Mohsen Yeganeh[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category is barely populated. Can be recreated if there's actually something to put in there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This category already has three items and would be a single category for this singer (I moved other items from this and this category]]. Mjbmr ^Talk 20:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – any albums should be in Category:Mohsen Yeganeh albums, not lumped into Category:Mohsen Yeganeh. Occuli (talk) 23:02, 30 August 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:Mohammad Khatami[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:25, 30 August 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:Chembai[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the category may be deleted if deemed superflous. I am the creator of the article and the categories Srkris (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands, it's a valid use of a category, and this is one topic area where our coverage is quite weak and I can only see the category expanding in the future. —SpacemanSpiff 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though just barely. Note that we can expect some growth as it's hard to imagine that we won't eventually have articles for individual albums and Category:Chembai albums. Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 30 August 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:Matthias Bel[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely populated. Can be recreated if there's actually something to categorize. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 30 August 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:Heinrich Schütz[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant composer. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Helpful navigation aid for a significant cultural figure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until Category:Compositions by Heinrich Schütz has been created and populated. Pichpich (talk) 15:38, 2 September 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:Wilhelm Raabe[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barely populated. Can be recreated if there's actually something to categorize. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:29, 30 August 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:Gotthold Ephraim Lessing[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, enough category members IMO. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A most significant playwright. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Helpful navigation aid for a significant cultural figure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very important figure; category will also become more useful as articles on Laocoon etc. are eventually created. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 31 August 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:Matthias Grünewald[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Helpful navigation aid for a significant cultural figure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:57, 31 August 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:Doro (musician)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there is nothing here other than the albums subcat. Occuli (talk) 23:07, 30 August 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:Georges Simenon[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful as a container category and room for growth. For instance we may well end up with articles for the Center for Georges Simenon Studies, perhaps a redirect for the 100 Years of Georges Simenon coin, a list of the numerous awards and accolades he's received, a bibliography, an article about Gabriel Laderman's series of Maigret-inspired paintings, and so on: Simenon is a major literary figure so articles relating to him and his work are to be expected. Pichpich (talk) 22:11, 30 August 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:René Magritte[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A most significant painter. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:56, 30 August 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:Johann Strauss II[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A most significant composer. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary—contains only a subcategory for compositions and the main article. Significance of the person is irrelevant to deciding whether we need a category for content that exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Helpful navigation aid for a significant cultural figure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 31 August 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:Franz Lehár[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very significant composer. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Helpful navigation aid for a significant cultural figure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 31 August 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:Franz Grillparzer[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant playwright. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Helpful navigation aid for a significant cultural figure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:57, 31 August 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:Trudi Canavan[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 30 August 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:Gabriella Cilmi[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful. All articles about her are there and Subcategories too. --Minerva97 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 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:Juan Perón[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A most significant ruler of a major country! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the weakest nomination of the bunch. There's clearly enough here to justify an exception. Where else should we meaningfully categorize Early life of Juan Perón? This is close to a textbook case of exceptions described by WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I might add that, as all Perón-related info has been condensed at the single article of his biography (it is thus tagged as long), there are valid forks that have not been created yet, as his presidency, his exile in Europe, or his death and state funeral Cambalachero (talk) 15:42, 1 September 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:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current head of state, legitimate category members Cambalachero (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree, useful, legitmate category as a notable person. May be a useful navigational tool and... "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 6 September 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:Ernesto Sabato[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary—contains only a subcategory for works and the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 30 August 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:Robert M. Pirsig[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, notable person, probably important navigation tool and... "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 6 September 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:Willard Price[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:35, 30 August 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:Will Eisner[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral Useful, but not many of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response How is two "plenty"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too small to merit an exception. But it would be a good idea to create a {{Will Eisner}} navigation box. Pichpich (talk) 15:47, 2 September 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:Edwin Hubble[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An extra aid to navigation and certainly enough content in the category to warrant one. Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough articles to justify an exception. Pichpich (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person, probably important navigation tool, and... "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:39, 6 September 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:Wikipedia talk archives[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (following on from two nominations on the 29 August) The category used to be used by Template:Talk archive but was removed from the template in September 2008. Now only contains a few talk page archives where the category is hardcoded in the page. WOSlinker (talk) 18:32, 30 August 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:Portal archives[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (following on from two nominations on the 29 August) The category used to be used by Template:Archive but was removed from the template in September 2008. Now only contains a few talk page archives where the category is hardcoded in the page. WOSlinker (talk) 18:31, 30 August 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:Julia Child[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 30 August 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:Igor Stravinsky[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of category members. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A most significant composer. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Helpful navigation aid for a significant cultural figure. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough articles to justify the category. Lugnuts (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough articles to justify an exception. Pichpich (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, plenty of category members. "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:34, 6 September 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:Sylvester Stallone[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very useful as a container category, and it categorizes things that would otherwise be overlooked. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}

Keep "Discouraged" does not mean "forbidden" and it's certainly not the only school of thought. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 6 September 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:Eponymous categories for populated places[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eponymous categories for populated places to Category:Categories named after populated places

Nominator's rationale: Cf. with all of the other subcats. of Category:Eponymous categories as well as most of the subcats. here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, better name, and consistent with the others.--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea why this cat exists. Our pages are categorized by how they are related, not but what they are titled. Same goes for our cats.Curb Chain (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are related by being categories of pages relating to topics of a certain type (particular populated places, in this case). It just turns out that saying it in terms of how they are titled is the neatest way anyone's thought of of doing it. (Unless there are any better suggestions floating around.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename - Per nom and Kotniski. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:24, 4 September 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:Minnesota State Mankato Mavericks men's ice hockey players[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: result. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Minnesota State Mankato Mavericks men's ice hockey players to Category:Minnesota State Mavericks men's ice hockey players

Nominator's rationale: Merge The two categories are clearly identical in scope. The merge target matches the main article Minnesota State Mavericks men's ice hockey. Pichpich (talk) 18:26, 30 August 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:Restorationism[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Restorationism to Category:Christian primitivism

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Restorationism is the term nearly always used in the Mormon context. Since Mormonism not only claims to have restored the Gospel, but to have revealed new truths in this Dispensation, I'm not sure it can be claimed to be Primitivist in this context.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Apparently I created the category, but I agree with the proposed change, in part because the current category name is ambiguous. COGDEN 18:58, 30 August 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:Ignazio Silone[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 30 August 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:Stephen Spender[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Again, of no possible benefit to Wikipedia. Nominator has a history of deleting all such categories, without outlining specific benefits, or indeed creating some form of template to allow all the articles within such categories to be linked together outwith the main article.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Discouraged by whom? Who decided that and why weren't the rest of us invited?[reply]

Response Deletion doesn't have to be justified as beneficial, simply within consensus (and, as you pointed out, there is a lot of it): creation does have to be justified. How is it useful to have a flood of categories named after persons with just three articles in it? For what it's worth, I've never deleted anything--categories are nominated and the vast majority that I have nominated have been deleted because the community decided as such, not by fiat from me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary—contains only a subcategory for works and the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Occuli (talk) 23:10, 30 August 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:Uncategorized images[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty, doesn't appear to be useful because image categorization should usually take place at Commons. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all images on en.wiki can be transferred to Commons due to important differences in copyright policies. Categorization of images that are en.wiki specific is an important cleanup task and this category can be helpful for that purpose. Pichpich (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be better done by database reports, for example, Wikipedia:Database reports/File description pages containing no templates or categories. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:59, 31 August 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:Ghosts 'n Goblins[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/delete: Category:Ghosts'n Goblins now exists, which matches Ghosts'n Goblins, so we can consider this just a speedy C2D rename that was implemented in a wonky sort of way. If anyone objects, this can be renominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: housekeeping: should have simply clicked rename but category:ghosts'n goblins now exists so there's no point worrying about it now Despatche (talk) 06:59, 30 August 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:Catalan Countries[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Catalan Countries to Category:Països Catalans

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move the article - this is not catalan wikipedia (but it should be 'countries', surely). Occuli (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Països Catalans is a politically charged term, and its meaning is vague, as it sometimes refers only to specific regions where the language is spoken and other times to entire countries where only a tiny area speaks it. The more neutral Catalan Countries is a better choice. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:51, 2 September 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:Sly & the Family Stone[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sly & the Family Stone to Category:Sly and the Family Stone

Propose renaming Category:Sly & the Family Stone audio samples to Category:Sly and the Family Stone audio samples

Propose renaming Category:Images of Sly & the Family Stone to Category:Images of Sly and the Family Stone

Propose renaming Category:Sly & the Family Stone album covers to Category:Sly and the Family Stone album covers

Propose renaming Category:Sly & the Family Stone members to Category:Sly and the Family Stone members

Propose renaming Category:Sly & the Family Stone albums to Category:Sly and the Family Stone albums

Propose renaming Category:Sly & the Family Stone songs to Category:Sly and the Family Stone songs

Nominator's rationale: Article was moved from Sly & the Family Stone to Sly and the Family Stone in February 2010 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't really have a horse in the race whether "&" or "and" is better, but they should definitely all be consistent with the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Generally "and" is better, "&" should probably only be used for entities that are almost invariably known as "&". Rich Farmbrough, 05:50, 30 August 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:Monthly clean up category (Merge by month) counter[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: has been speedily deleted/merged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Monthly clean up category (Merge by month) counter to Category:Merge by month

Nominator's rationale: These categories seem identical, I don't know why there are two. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied it (G7) since the category tree for merges is very non-standard. It's a counter category, that allows calculation of the number of undated pages by subtracting the number of categories (in the counter cat) from the number of members (in the parent cat - which is usually also the cat for undated items). There are other ways of finding the number but they have their own drawbacks. Rich Farmbrough, 05:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You know, I don't think it works right anyway. I've frequently seen it list negative numbers of undated pages. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:20, 30 August 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:Catalan-speaking countries[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: One country, therefore synonymous with Category:Andorra Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are 4 countries: Andorra, France (Pyrénées-Orientales), Spain (Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearics, La Franja, Carche) and Italy (Alghero). Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are subdivisions, not countries. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How come they are not countries? I meant the 4 states in bold "Andorra, France, Spain and Italy"; not the dependent territories.

Andorra, Spain, etc. are the countries where Catalan is spoken, aren't they? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... usually XYZ-speaking means official language or de facto official language. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Catalan is the only official language of Andorra, a co-official language in Spain and Italy, and an unofficial language (though recognised) in France. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks redundant to Category:Catalan_Countries to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, both categories should be merged into just one. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose These are two separate schemes: one is a part of a larger "Countries by language" scheme and the other is particular to a definition of a people group. Although they will certainly overlap, they are not identical in purpose or scope. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a scheme. Rich Farmbrough, 05:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comments – this was deleted unanimously by cfd in Nov 2006 and is explicitly mentioned in WP:SMALLCAT. Occuli (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; let's add the United States to this cat, because no doubt the census will reveal Catalan speakers in the USA. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a scheme. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:17, 2 September 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:Roman Catholic Church organizations[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations to Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics

Nominator's rationale: Content disputes have led several of us to propose a new way of handling this category. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/2011 organization categories proposal for full details of this plan, and comment there after reading. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep as as. These are organizations created by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, not things that lay Catholics created. A very big difference. Rename just muddles everything about the Church. Hmains (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the link and check out the entire proposal, which provides for categorization of orgs created by the hierarchy without leaving lay orgs sans a container category (as is theoretically the status quo right now). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the link when this was first nominated and now read it again. My 'keep as is' and reasoning stays the same: the idea is good; the names chosen are not. The subcats of Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations are organizations created/maintained by the 'Roman Catholic Church' hierarchy so this category is currently properly named to match that fact. A Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics would, on the other hand, contain organizations created/maintained by lay 'Roman Catholics', not the hierarchy. Various articles directly in Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations would need to be moved Category:Organizations of Roman Catholics. Hmains (talk) 01:35, 4 September 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:Chandigarh Capital Region[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 as empty. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty cat. Cat itself is not a described location. No occurrences of "Chandigarh Capital Region" anywhere in mainspace. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is entirely non-controversial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At such time as CCR actually demonstrably exists, we can bring back the article, category, and everything else that went along with it. Until then.... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 31 August 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.