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, with the option to remove any members that are not suitable. Category:Clerical celibacy is a category about aspects of the topic, as a whole, of clerical celibacy and can, therefore, contain articles about violations of the practice. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure about this one. Something seems POV to me about collecting articles on married priests, homosexual priests, and priests abusing children, and categorising them all as 'violations of clerical celibacy'. Category:Opposition to clerical celibacy might be a better idea for a category. Anyone else have any thoughts? Robofish (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (although I would like to denounce the problems of the church far and wide). The, arhh, member articles are already widely categorised. This category is needless dilution of the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A "violations of X" category inherently pejorative, whatever the context. It is also un-needed, because articles about "violations of X" can be accommodated just fine in Category:X. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why would we merge things that aren't X with things that are X? Just delete the category altogether.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2012 (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:Delete. I realize that this a term that a lot of people like to use (and even has its own subsection on Splatter film) but I think the term itself is a bit loaded to be passed off as an objective categorizing. At the very least, it's something that's easily disputed and has been by various people working on the films in question. For example, Pascal Laugier disputes the term "torture porn" to describe his movie Martyrs as seen in this interview.CyberGhostface (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm inclined to agree, this is too subjective to work as a category. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments and a judgement call on my part. I don't really know how far we should satisfy the voyeuristic demands of WP readers but I think a definition is sufficient. There is no need to categorise such subjective films. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:36, 16 June 2012 (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:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.)[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 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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Space adventure" is not a widely accepted genre of video game. "Adventure video games that take place wholly or partially in outer space" is also patently false since adventure game means something completely different from how the category is currently being used. Delete as non-notable genre. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the advent of Space Quest back in the '80s, it has been a relevant genre, and a significant part of the industry. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "games set in space" is a real thing that occurs but there is no consensus that the genre of "space adventure" exists in the video game space. For example, one would rarely if ever put "space adventure" into an infobox on a game. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a well-defined genre, rather a case of "these games take place partially in space, let's chuck 'em together in this category". - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and The Bushranger. "Space adventure" does not seem to be a clearly defined genre, though "adventure game" is quite well-defined. We could, I suppose, create a category for adventure games set in space (it would partly overlap with Category:Space simulation narrative-based game), but I don't see a reason to do that as I am generally opposed to categorizing works of fiction by elements of the (fictional) plot or setting. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:35, 20 June 2012 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. Makes sense.--RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2012 (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 with support from category creator. This points that the other subcategories of Category:Novels based on video games might need to be looked at for potential renaming due to ambiguity too. The BushrangerOne ping only 18:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As currently named, this category is likely to be confused with Category:Novels by Tom Clancy. The category is for novels that are based on Tom Clancy games. Such novels are not written by Tom Clancy. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should exclude novels that Tom Clancy games are based on, correct? The current category tree does not make that clear. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, more clearly describes what's in the category. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2012 (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: delete this horrible incomplete category one along with the three subcats. They misrepresent the branch of science of phytogeography . Note that there is no category series for the broader [Biogeography by country]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and broaden scope. Interesting that the larger category doesn't exist but the smaller one does. Also support not creating the country subcats at this time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2012 (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: Currently has two articles and one sub-cat. I removed a number of [Water resources management in XXXX] articles and the two remaining ones are in the "Water by country" series (I may end up renaming them). Note that there is no [Category:Water resources]. Also, for the purposes of these categories water resources can be thought of as a synonym for water. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (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: Delete this category and the subcats of the form [Water bodies by XXXX]. I stumbled across this series when working on a Category:Water by country series. It was started in 2009 and has only had a half hearted stab at being worked on. If we had both Category:Water by country and Category:Water bodies by country it would "dilute" the two categories unnecessarily. As it is the water by country categories are not exactly overpopulated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The water bodies by country subcategories can be readily created from all the articles in the subcats of lakes by county, rivers by county, etc etc. This is the optimal parent category for these subcats and 'water bodies' is the proper collective name here. Hmains (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me; it will match the main article name instead of the redirect to the article as is currently the case. 'Water body' always did sound somewhat strange' Hmains (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Vegaswikian. This is also quite a bit of work. You up to it Hmains? :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do renames (no authority), but I can move things around, as needed. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this passes, I think that the closing admin could make a statement that, if in doing the cleanup, any emptying of categories would not be a violation of the established guidelines. That should allow anyone to do the needed cleanup without worrying about violating guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
