Category:New York State Bar Association members[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) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First: This is redundant, since we have already Category:New York lawyers and a whole set of categories of different types of lawyers. Since most lawyers (or all nowadays?) are members of the local bar associations, it would be an unhelpful hold-all category. Second: Although most sources say "practiced law", I have very seldom seen a source stating that some lawyer was a "member of the bar association" (for the above reason, I suppose). Kraxler (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining.- choster (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I understood that the US only had one type of lawyer - attorney. Which professional association they are members of seems immaterial. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is important is that they are lawyers, being part of a particular association has no professional relevance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 18 October 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:New York City Bar Association members[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) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same as abovementioned for State Bar. These two categories were made up yesterday by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Then he added quickly a few names of lawyers who had been dead for decades when this association was founded... Kraxler (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining.- choster (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I understood that the US only had one type of lawyer - attorney. Which professional association they are members of seems immaterial. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 October 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See "Category:Reservoirs in Canada" below, Wikipedia:Category names requires "manufactured objects" to use "in". Tradition seems to be that reservoirs fall under that classification, rather than "landforms". The Interior(Talk) 17:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename physical features are generally "in" a place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, category policy says the opposite: "(Section:Landforms) "Categories of landforms by country are named "... of country"." from Wikipedia:Category names. The dividing line seems to be provenance, natural features get "of", man-made "in". The Interior(Talk) 22:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reservoirs fall under both headings; they are a man-made landform. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 20 October 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. According to the main article in this category and to be in line with the parent industry category. At the same time, it probably needs some cleanup to make sure that petroleum industry and economics articles are correctly separated between this category and Category:Petroleum economics. Probably also some recategorization between this category and Category:Petroleum production is needed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 14 October 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:withdrawn by nominator. ([1]) – FayenaticLondon 19:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Should have read Wikipedia:Category names, where "manufactured objects" get "in", while landforms get "of". So I guess the tradition is that the "manufactured landforms" get "in". The Interior(Talk) 17:27, 14 October 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:Merge/Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since softball is effectively played at a high level as a competitive sport by only women, a notable softball player is going to be, by definition, female. Therefore, this category effectively duplicates Category:Softball players and its category hierarchy and serves no useful purpose. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:00, 14 October 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:Opinion polling for elections in New Zealand[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) 13:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a sensible suggestion. Looking at what is in the parent category, though, you can find hardly anything that is not election-related (with the exception of the UK and the US). But either way, the parent category name is broader, and there's no reason why this category name cannot be broader as well. Schwede66 18:13, 14 October 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:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one image, itself tagged as an invalid FUR for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 14 October 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.
Comment I've always wondered how to cat albums by bands that have changed their name. Surely moving to the current name is incorrect for those early releases? Why can't both be retained? LugnutsAnd the horse 09:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Because it's the same entity and there is only one article on the topic. A Silver Mount Zion chooses cutesy names for each new album--do you think it aids in navigation to have seven different one-article categories for each iteration of their name? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, good pick with ASMZ! Hmmm, interesting point. I don't think it's a navigation issue - each category could have a hatnote to the band's next name. I think it's more a case of not re-writing history (albeit a tiny part of history). In this case, it would simply be wrong to move The Red Record to the category of Category:Gosling albums, as they weren't known by that name when they recorded that album. Maybe it's not important in the big scheme of things. Has this ever been raised at the Album Project before? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:09, 14 October 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 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has erroneous subcategory, which can be upmerged to Category:Kerli —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 14 October 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.
Response Why keep this? The two categories are linked with {{catseealso}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 22 October 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:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged, this can all be accomplished easily with {{catseealso}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – such eponymous musician cats with 3 or more subcats have generally been kept at cfd. (See my list.) It's some time since any such have been brought to cfd. Oculi (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not about Kingdom Come, so therefore this category is used to catch things improperly. Such an ambiguously named category will end up catching waaay too many things, such as the famous Graphic Novel, the afterlife, etc. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a navbox will do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 18 October 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.
