Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10[edit]

Chinese text[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The distinction between these categories may be unnecessarily subtle. The form of writing used in the PRC is customarily called Simplified Chinese. Rybec (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind: I see that the distinction is between Simplified Chinese containing terms used in Malaysia and Singapore versus Simplified Chinese containing terms used in the PRC. Rybec (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2013 (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:Harvard librarians[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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 February 1 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nominator's rename. There is no risk in confusing library science students with the library staff. The majority of students are unlikely to ever have articles on WP because they were students of library science. If they become notable it will be for other reasons. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Harvard University Library staff. This may technically be slightly wider, but that will not matter. We need to keep out library-science students and students who happen to have part-time employment in the library. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly will your rename do the latter? If we open it up to "staff" would that not include part-time staff? Actually, I think your rename target is the proposed option most likely to include part-time student employees in its contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JPL. "Library staff" includes shelf-stackers, cleaners, security guards, and countless other types of worker who are not librarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally misunderstanding what students people want to exclude. No one has suggestede we exclude people who had at one point been students at Harvard. What they want to exclude is people who were only connected with Harvard while students there. Harris, for example, was the librarian of Harvard long after he was a student there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are also reading Primary Topic too narrowly. The fact that cities named Harvard may well have librarians, some of whom may become notable might be an additional reason to rename. However the main issue is that we generally refer to the instution as Harvard University in all its subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, WP:PTOPIC does not apply to categories. Categories raises different issues wrt ambiguity, which is why we have Birmingham in Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 14 February 2013 (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:The X-Files episode redirects to lists[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 delete as empty category per WP:CSD#C1. For future reference, categories which have become redundant in this way don't need to be brought to CFD; just tag them with {{db-catempty}}. (This doesn't apply if an editor thinks a category is a bad idea; it's only to be done when a category is no longer applicable to any pages). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since every episode of The X-Files now has its own article, there are no longer any redirects from episode titles to lists. I already emptied this category by fixing links to the correct articles. The category has now become obsolete. FakirNL (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (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:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs to Category:Italian athletics biography stubs and Category:Paralympics stubs.
Note that while we do have a Category:Paralympic medalist stubs, there is no general stub category for Category:Paralympic competitors. It might be advisable to create a Category:Paralympic competitor stubs (or Category:Paralympics biography stubs), since there are 757 pages in Category:Paralympics stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub category with an undersized permanent category. Delete stub category, and upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once article count permits. Dawynn (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand the problem. If a category is underpopulated is well, it means that many articles are not stub. The objective of Wikipedia is the "destubization". --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the purpose of stub sorting is to help editors find groups of articles that meet their interest. Please review the guidelines for the project. Past experience has shown that stub categories with less than about 60 articles are too finely granulated to be of use. We can keep the template, but upmerge it to more appropriately sized categories. Dawynn (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose of stub categories is to provide a systematic basis to allow for identification of stub articles by type so that editors can work on their expansion to get them out of the category. The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible. With 9 articles presently in Category:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs and 17 in Category:Paralympic athletes of Italy, it seems that neither it undersized. Even if the size were a genuine issue, constantly deleting the category when it was deemed too small and waiting for it to be large enough before recreating it, and doing so in a neverending cycle of deletion and recreation of the stub category, hardly seems to be an effective way to deal with these stubs. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible." is true, but is misrepresenting the issue as the aim is less stubs total, but over-categorising stubs would make the stub system virtually useless - a stub category with one stub does not help an editor find similar articles to expand at all. As Dawynn says, 60-800 is the standard consensus aimed for at this point. I personally would prefer a bit smaller standard, say 40-500, but others in the past have criticised the system as over-categorised as is and think stub cats should aim for 500-2000 or similar (sorry, I cannot find the discussion where I read this argument). In this case, 9 has been previously agreed on as way to small a group to need its own stub category (though a template is fine, and in this case fits WP:WSS's speedy criteria), and (part of) the point about the small parent category I think Dawynn was making is that there is little apparent potential growth (as obviously there should not be more Italian paralympic athlete stubs then there are Italian paralympic athletes). Hence, in this case there should be no danger of the neverending cycle you mention. Although I do notice this category was boldly created without proposal at WP:WSS/P and yet the creator added a template which asks that categories be discussed at that page before creation. --Qetuth (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cat, upmerge template To be clear, deleting a category does not lose useful information with stubs as the stub template is still on the article - it will simply put the article in the current parents (Paralympics stubs and Italian sportspeople stubs) instead of its own category. --Qetuth (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just tried to find some of the untagged articles mentioned by Sportygeek, and brought it up to 14 before noticing another problem - the tag populating this category is {{Italy-paralympics-bio-stub}}. No mention of athletics. Hence I just added it to some archers before noticing the link in the stub tag went to an article for a specific sport. So, there is a mismatch here and at the very least either the category should be renamed to more generic Paralympians or the template should be moved to {{Italy-paralympics-athletics-bio-stub}}. This though seems like too fine a division, especially when most of its parents are yet to exist. Instead, I would like to propose the following solution:
Proposal
  1. Delete both template and category nominated.
  2. Create {{Italy-Paralympic-medalist-stub}} (speedy S2, covers most, if not all, of the articles being discussed as few Paralympians without medals have articles yet).
  3. Create {{Paralympic-bio-stub}} and associated category Category:Paralympics biography stubs to hold competitors who don't fot the existing 'medalists' tree, non-competitors such as coaches/executives, and a possible future 'by event' tree.
  4. Create {{Paralympic-athletics-bio-stub}} and for now upmerge both this and {{wheelchairrugby-bio-stub}} to the above category.
  5. Investigate at WP:WSS/P the possibility of a scheme of national paralympics stub tags and/or categories - some countries have organisations, by year summaries, sporting teams, all in the main Category:Paralympics stubs plus competitors both with and without medals, so I think at least some of those countries could justify a category.
This way, rather than an italian athletics medallist being tagged with Italian athletics stub and para. medallist stub, they would be tagged with Italian medallist stub and para. athletics stub, which has the same information but a clearer category structure and may better suit the goal of grouping stub articles by editor interest. --Qetuth (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2013 January 21 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for Qetuth's proposal? It seems to address most of the concerns raised on all sides
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to equivalent Italy athlete category and (if necessary) the general Paralympics stubs category. Qetuth's proposal has some merit, but will result in even more small categories. This is presumably being populated by a stub type, so that perhaps this should be being discussed elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2013 (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:S.H.I.E.L.D. films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to appropriate Marvel films categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link films where the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection. J Greb (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective upmerge to multiple parents excluding the "by series" categories. I am not familiar with these films, but the two apart from Capt America prominently feature SHIELD; just de-categorise that one. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 January 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 10 February 2013 (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:S.H.I.E.L.D. in other media[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link non-comics uses of the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection. Very much redundant with S.H.I.E.L.D.#In other media. J Greb (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and prune. Change to Category:Works based on S.H.I.E.L.D. and remove members where the connection is weak. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would these two categories be better converted to some sort of Category:Fictional universes subcat? I would think that signs a tv series or movie is set in the same universe and have some characters in common is a good reason for categorisation, and isn't that what the presence of SHIELD indicates? --Qetuth (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't. Just like DC, Marvel has various universes in which different versions of the same characters and agencies appear; the two Spider-Man series categorised here, for instance, do not take place in the same universe, but rather feature different versions of Spidey. Same for the two Iron Man series. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 January 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 10 February 2013 (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:Short-range ballistic missiles[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article Short-range ballistic missile states that In modern terminology, SRBMs are part of the wider grouping of theatre ballistic missiles, which includes any ballistic missile with a range of less than 3,500 km; these two categories are overlapping, redundant, and the term "theatre ballistic missile" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this sort of weapon. The Bushranger One ping only 12:39, 10 February 2013 (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.

Military equipment of the Vietnam War[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 all. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The following articles that are in categories proposed for deletion above should be moved up to the remaining category: Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War, Hanoi Taxi, List of bombs in the Vietnam War, Weapons of the Vietnam War.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a type of weapon by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERFORM. Previous discussions about similar categories include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Falklands_War. The categories for articles about individual ships are not included in this nom. Note: This nom is a step towards the deletion of most/all of Category:Military equipment by conflict. The top level category (Category:Military equipment of the Vietnam War) is not included in this nomination as it includes a number of articles (e.g. Landmines in the Vietnam War) for which the Vietnam War is a defining characteristic - that category should be cleaned out manually. DexDor (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - This is a borderline case, as it could be argued that the Korean War was significant enough to be defining for some of its equipment...but the key word is "some". This is best handled as lists in the appropriate articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify any that are missing from the existing lists should be added, or new lists created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all perhaps with selective listifying. I would question whether separate Australian lists are useful: they could be included as a separate section in more general lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all there is no reason to have categories where we classify mass-produced items by every conflict in which a few such mass produced items were used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I don't see the efficacy of listification for the Australian ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 9 March 2013 (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.

Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin[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: listify and delete all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain various types of pages - articles about things (boomerang, koala, wallaby etc), articles about places, articles about peoples names, dab pages and redirects. Almost the only type of page they don't contain is articles about words/phrases. Listifying in WP is unnecessary as there's Wiktionary (e.g. Wiktionary:Category:English terms derived from Pama-Nyungan languages). See also points raised at Category talk:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin#What_is_this_catgeory_for? DexDor (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK to listify, however Wiktionary should be the place for readers to find a comprehensive list of words that originated in a particular language; it's appropriate for WP to give some examples and link to Wiktionary, but I don't see why WP needs to try to maintain complete lists (not that I'm proposing deleting any such lists). I intend to review the articles in the parent cat (and its parent...), but that may result in a purge rather than a complete deletion. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of see your point, although I believe such info has as much encyclopedic value as it does...dictionaric? But this doesn't appear to be the way we currently work: such lists on Wiktionary are rare and often shorter than their Wikipedia equivalents. If English words being derived from Dharug, or Korean, is a documented phenomenon, Wikipedia should probably have an article, list or section discussing such, and interested potential readers are unlikely to find it directly on Wiktionary which is really not set up for that kind of searching to the inexperienced.
I just noticed while writing this that the Dharug language article already lists everything in Category:Dharuk words and phrases in a subsection, so it is possible most of the work is already done. --Qetuth (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that readers can find a list in Wiktionary I meant the Wiktionary category rather than a list article in Wiktionary. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify before deletion -- The extent to which this should then be subject to transwiki is a different issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia articles are on things and should be classified with this in mind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, then delete. This is actually a rather interesting article, but inappropriate as a category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify what can be sourced, then delete this could be the core of an interesting article on English-speakers borrowing of indigenous terms for new items and concepts encountered, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (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:Welsh loanwords[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: listify and delete all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Welsh loanwords
  • Delete Category:Scottish Gaelic loanwords
  • Delete Category:Cornish loanwords
  • Delete Category:Gaulish loanwords
  • Delete Category:Irish loanwords
  • Delete Category:Manx loanwords
  • Nominator's rationale These are all overcategoization by shared name. As was pointed out until recently we had Category:Hindi loanwords that contained Looting because we had chosent that name for the article and not its German-loanword synonym Plundering. Wikipedia articles are on things, and the things they are on are very rarely the words themselves. These subjects are much better covered by dictionaries than encyclopedias, but if we cover them at all it should be in lists. I was thinking of nominating the whole tree, but I know some of the categories will bring out people who want to use wikipedia categories to advance linguistic studies. I figured we would be best off to handle a close grouping of a limited number so that we do not get overwhelmed by any objections. Also, it made sense since their most immediate parent is up for nomination for renaming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify all. Such a collection may indeed be of interest, but it is a feature of the name not the object, and synonyms with differing roots are overwhelmingly common. --Qetuth (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these category names have no meaning. They don't indicate if these are loanwords in the language, or loanwords from the language. Further some of the categories suffer WP:Systematic bias being only words in that language from English, or words in English from that language, when there are many other languages in the world besides English and language X. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete' -- These are presumably English words with a particualr origin: this is not a shared name, but a shared origin. That shared origin is of interest, but I am not convinced that this is not somethign for the dictionary. Nevertheless we could have an encyclopaedic article on the loan words from other languages to English. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Would this not be a rather substantial category? I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete; in most cases there are existing lists. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify what can be sourced, and delete per above, and what seems to be gelling consensus on these types of categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2013 (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:Celtic loanwords[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, when the sub-categories have been listified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Celtic loanwords to Category:Lists of Celtic loanwords
  • Nominator's rationale This category has now been limited to articles that are functionally lists. For now it seems we have enough lists here to make it worth keeping the category. If we need all the list articles is another question that will probably be decided at some other time. For now we should rename the category to prevent it from being turned back into the loanword categories we are in the process of getting rid of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename IFF the above subcats are deleted or listified. --Qetuth (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed category name is ambiguous (current name is also ambiguous) If we consider only the list articles in the nominated category, and not subcategories, then then name should be Category:Lists of loanwords from Celtic; this is not currently a category of loanwords in Celtic languages, only of loanwords in non-Celtic languages from Celtic languages. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- neither the present or the target is satisfactory, but I have no suggestion as to what the target should be. In any evetn this partly depends on the outcome of the discussion above. I would suggest that this is relisted when that one is closed. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both opposes seem odd because neither likes the current situation. If you do not like the target and do not like the current situation, you should try to come up with a better target, not just shot down honest attempts to improve the situation. Anyway, the target name is not "ambiguous" as much as it is broad. Since this category contains lists of English, Spanish and French words with Celtic origin, it is fairly broad. I guess we could rename it to Category:Lists of words of Celtic origin, but I always thought that was exactly what loanword meant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did come up with a better target, it's a redlink in my opinion. And "loanword" does not mean that, since it can also mean Category:Lists of words in Celtic languages borrowed from non-Celtic languages which is why I said both source and target names are ambiguous. ; but bearing on your second proposed category name, Category:Lists of words of Celtic origin is acceptable to me.-- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, would be my vote. It's probably best to upmerge all of the cats on this level to the supercat and then decide how to proceed from there. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the above discussion results in listify/delete, then rename this. – Fayenatic London 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the above discussion results in listify/delete, then rename this. The above oppose comments haven't considered the likely outcome above which undermines their rationale. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (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:Songs written by Jace Everett[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. The Bushranger One ping only 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Everett wrote only two notable songs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_10&oldid=1074810644"