Category:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) episodes[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The category doesn't contains lists but article about the episodes. Tassedethe (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles TV episodes would be an even simpler name. Since there are multiple seasons, I presume it was not just in 1987, not do there appear to rival series. The articles may also need renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As noted, there are two differnet TMNT series that need their turtle power distinguished. - The BushrangerOne ping only 12:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the pages are lists of episodes for each season. Rename instead to "Lists…" plural. – FayenaticLondon 23:49, 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:List of Chinese Canadian 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:speedy renamed. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category doesn't contain lists but actual Chinese Canadian organizations. Tassedethe (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, as far as I'm concerned we can just speedy-rename this as a C2B, "rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices", and don't need to debate it. Consider it done. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 9 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:Dominican Republic people of African descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: No references provided for any of the articles listed in the category. All the articles listed have only been listed based on the skin colour of the person, which is just WP:OR. It's easier to simply delete this category and create specific categories (such as "of Nigerian descent") if the references confirm it. TonyStarks (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The very idea of this category is counter to the reality of ancestory, ethnicity and personal knowledge in the Dominican Republic. This is definately not identifying an ethnic group in the country, which is the only way we would allow such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an African descent part of the Dominican Republic. There are references linking to this matter that states that his population is around 10-11 %. BOP have to reference this before including the category, is not just matter of skin color. Osplace 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually more like 84% of the population of the DR is of African Descent. Well, assuming that "white" there based on the CIA handbook report used in the Demographics article means "no African ancestry" and I have my doubts about that. In the DR mixed=African. And as this category is being used it is being applied to people with no intext support based on observing pictures. Anyway, we lack an article Dominican Republic people of African descent and I have yet to see any evidence that they are a distinct ethnic group there, which they would have to be to justify this category. There is even less evidence that this category is being applied in such a way that it does not include people from the 73% of the DRs population that are identified as "mixed".John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Osplace, not a single person listed in that category has any explicit relation to Africa apart from the fact they're not "white". No Dominican person is born in Africa. Their ancestors might have come from Africa hundreds of years ago but if there's no evidence, which in 99% of the case there isn't, then they don't belong in the category. This applies to everyone listed in that category. Like I said, it makes more sense to delete this category and create categories based on national origin when necessary, such Category:Dominican Republic people of Chinese descent. TonyStarks (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Delete. Osplace 02:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL. There's no reliable citation for category inclusion. Two, how far back do we go before someone attains 'Dominican' ancestry? Three, if 84 percent of the population has some African ancestry, then how is this defining? Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another race/descent category with the one drop rule applied - we're worse than Goebbels in splitting genes and hairs here - the DR government doesn't even track this, so presumably trivial or of no consequence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 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.
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:nomination withdrawn. There were no deletion rationales at all which were validly specific to this category; instead, the only cited argument was against the entire concept of categorizing politicians as LGBT at all, which was not actually within the scope of the debate. One person did express a preference for upmerging, but also indicated that the renaming was acceptable to her — and spent much more of her time explaining that position (and the inappropriateness of the "delete as irrelevant" argument) instead of the upmerge one anyway; one person unequivocally supported renaming. Given that the possibility of a consensus to upmerge instead of renaming is the only reason that I didn't just rename it myself right off the bat, and there's clearly no consensus in the end to actually do so, I'm therefore closing this as a withdrawn nomination and just going ahead with what I probably should have done in the first place. If anybody wants to make a comprehensive nomination of the entire Category:LGBT politicians tree, they're certainly free to do so if they wish — but I have to admit that the phrase "fool's errand" comes to mind. Bearcat (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with the Category:Women mayors categories, this needs to be standardized on the "Mayors of places in X", rather than "Xian mayors", convention. (Sibling category Category:LGBT mayors of places in the United States is already correctly named.) That said, I'm not fully convinced that we actually need this at all — it's a recent creation by an editor who went through Category:LGBT politicians from Canada to systematically apply the same subcategories that were already in place within Category:LGBT politicians from the United States with no apparent regard to whether they were actually needed or not. For instance, this category only contains four articles — as opposed to the USian one, which contains almost 40, making it larger than the general international Category:LGBT mayors and the Category:Canadian LGBT mayors subcategory combined. So I certainly wouldn't object if CFD consensus settled on upmerging these articles back to Category:Canadian LGBT people in municipal politics and Category:LGBT mayors instead — but if we do want to keep it, then it definitely needs to be renamed in accordance with the established naming convention for mayors categories. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sexuality is not a significant concern when considering political office holders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you can still, in many countries, count the number of openly LGBT politicians on one hand — and considering that the ability of LGBT politicians to be out and still get elected is a phenomenon that didn't exist before the 1970s — it very much is a significant and notable concern when considering political office holders. For one thing, per WP:POLOUTCOMES an openly LGBT mayor qualifies for a Wikipedia article specifically on the grounds of being openly LGBT, even if they're the mayor of a town otherwise too small to claim notability just for being a mayor, because it's still rare enough to be a noteworthy occurence in its own right. And for another, the ability of LGBT politicians to get elected to office is itself generally one of the first, and one of the most inherently notable, signs in any country that visible progress toward LGBT equality is even occurring (in exactly the same way that is also true for women.)
Accordingly, the only valid question here is whether we actually need this particular country subcat at this time on size grounds alone — we are not debating whether "LGBT politicians" categories should or shouldn't exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, or (if there is no consenus to do that), then rename per nom and per Category:Mayors of places in Canada, which I have just added as a parent. JPL makes a good point about the relevance of the intersection between sexuality and political office, but if he wants to pursue that logic it should be applied to Category:LGBT mayors and all of its subcats, rather than just to one of them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSupport Rename Sexuality is a significant concern when considering political office holders, based on the real-world descriptions of the individuals included in the category:
Everyone of these individuals is defined by their sexuality in their Wikipedia articles, supported by reliable and verifiable sources which describe them based on their sexuality. We could make entirely unsupported blanket statements that sexuality is not a factor in making political choices, but the real-world sources available show that it is a strong defining characteristic and an appropriate aid to navigation across these articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you don't want it to be deleted. But the nomination is actually to rename the category. Do you have a view on the renaming? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do seem a bit unclear on what's actually on the menu here, so allow me to clarify: no matter what happens, these people are not going to be entirely removed from LGBT-related categorization — John Pack Lambert's suggestion simply is not going to happen. Rather, the questions that actually need to be answered are: (1) is four people enough to warrant a separate subcategory specifically for Category:Canadian LGBT mayors, or should they be upmerged back to where they were before, which is the combination of Category:Canadian LGBT people in municipal politics and Category:LGBT mayors as two separate categories? And (2) if we do keep it, do you have any objections to renaming it Category:LGBT mayors of places in Canada in accordance with the naming conventions for mayor categories? They're not going to get entirely degayed, because even if this did get somehow deleted without upmerging I'd manually readd the parent categories again anyway — so the case you need to make is answering my questions #1 and #2 here, not the argument you just made above. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear? At CfD, anything and everything is on the menu. My now-stricken vote was an eligible choice, but has now been updated. I would never want to see anyone "degayed", either in Wikipedia or in person. I feel that the category is large enough to justify its existence, especially as recent trends seem to indicate that the category will be growing. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why this is a defining characteristic of the politicians in question, nor how this has any effect on their job performance. I thought we've moved beyond that, now. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you dislike categorising politicians by this charcateristic, then nominate Category:LGBT politicians (and all its subcats) for deletion. If we delete this category, then the articles will simply be recategorised in Category:LGBT mayors, and if we deleted Category:LGBT mayors the articles would just go into Category:LGBT politicians. Whatever the merits or otherwise of categorising politicians in this way, deleting one of the lower-level categories is pointless disruption. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is being made on that front, certainly. But strictly speaking, to date we have not yet actually "moved beyond" this, any more than we have when it comes to women or people of colour — the fact that equality may exist in law does not mean that it fully exists in actual social practice. When it's no longer possible for a gay person to be the first ever LGBT holder of their office, because all the firsts have happened already, then maybe we'll be "beyond" it. When there are thousands of people who can be filed in Category:LGBT mayors and its subcategories instead of just 59, then maybe we'll be "beyond" it. But that day has not arrived yet. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 18 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 James Valentine (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:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only moved as a speedy on January 14th, 2013 from the proposed title. Please see category history. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article uses the disambiguation. We follow disambiguations in articles in category names. This is a bad idea to break the policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy you are referring to, here? J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are cases where category names can and/or should differ from 'main article' names. This is not one of them. - The BushrangerOne ping only 12:56, 13 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Ran into this one by accident. EC 3.5.1 seems to be a short hand standardized notation for Triphosphoric Monoester Hydrolases. Since neither the short form or the long form have articles, it is not clear what term should be used. This is a trial nomination. If there is a consensus, then the related categories will need renaming. Comments especially welcome. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most appear to have names. In going through the list, I found this entry, EC 3.1.2.24: transferred entry now EC 3.13.1.3, interesting. I think it adds support for not using this method of classification. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The nom specifically asked for comments so I assume people would be ok with relisting to give the opportunity to have more discussion. It doesn't seem like enough conversation has taken place here to come up with a plan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot∇. 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the correct form for the plural names here. So it this is it, I don't object to this. While it may mean nothing here, amides passes my spell checker, amidases does not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yuch! If we went with the formal definition, then it is a quadruple intersection where one of the conditions is a not something. I have to wonder at this point if deletion may be the best option for the entire series. We already have a list... Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 January 24 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The current name has no supporters, but there is as yet no consensus on any alternative. Relisting one more time, in the hope that some WikiProject notifications may bring in a few more editors.
As noted above, I have no objection to Category:Linear amidases if that is the proper plural. So take this as support for that title amusing that it is the correct plural name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 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.
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 per recent full discussions at WT:GAA and elsewhere. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to restore the long-standing title which was changed at CFD 2013 January 3. There is a complicated history behind this, so here's a brief explanation for those unaware of it: After the January 3 discussion, two further group nominations were opened to rename other similar categories: see CfD January 17 and CfD January 26. The controversy over these moves and other related issues led to a dispute-resolution process at WT:GAA, where there were was a clear consensus to use the "Foo hurlers" naming format for such categories: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games#Proposal_3 (permalink). I opposed a proposal to speedily rename this category, because it seemed procedurally wrong to simply revert a recent and valid CFD. So this nomination gives editors the opportunity for further discussion, if they want to do so ... although personally, I think that the issue has been done to death. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per consensus reached at WT:GAA. Brocach (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per consensus at WT:GAA and consequent defeat of 17 January CfD on Hurlers by "GAA county". Scolaire (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose that this be closed early if there is no unexpected development. Scolaire (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be surprised if this turned out to a case for a WP:SNOW closure, but probably best to let it run for a while and see if anyone objects. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This rename was done irregularly and ignoring my quite valid concern that we were messing with just one part of a standardized set quite recently. My comments were ignored but have been shown to be entirely correct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Snappy (talk) 18:54, 9 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:Ancient Greeks accused or listed as atheists[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete or rename to restrict the scope to something that's clear and objective (and grammatically sound). All categories based on things like "believed to be"/"accused of"/"considered as" run into the same "by whom?" problem. A third of the articles in there don't even mention atheism, some suggest that the atheism label was used by rivals and enemies of the subject at the time while others indicate that the subject is considered by modern historians as atheists. These nuances cannot be conveyed by a category and this should really be the subject of some sort of list or more interestingly an article on atheism in Ancient Greece (or a section in Religion in ancient Greece). Pichpich (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we generally limit categorization by religion to things people admit or are reliably sourced (for living people we only allow things they self-identify with). We do not want to categorize people by "accused". It is just a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Category:Ancient Greeks accused of atheism would be better, but would need to be limited to those supposed to be of Greek religion. Jews and Christians were accused of atheism, becasue they refused to worship idols. My problem that the two articles that I checked did not mention the accusation. The category is potentially a legitimate one, but needs to be supoported by evidence. This probably needs there to be a main article on Atheism in Ancient Greece. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think allowing an "x accused of y" category to exist will create a very bad precedent that we whould avoid like the plague it is. This might be acceptable for a list, but I cannot see any reason to give a category such a horrible name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kill it with fire. Nuke it from orbit. Salt. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, yes: accused is a worthless and subjective basis for categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a category for "Ancient Greek atheists" is one thing, "Ancient Greeks accused/believed to be atheists" is quite another... Constantine ✍ 10:07, 16 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.
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.
Delete. "Sudeten Bohemia" and "Sudeten Moravia" are nonexistent terms. While Sudetenland is a valid historical term, both names used in the category names are artificially coined, not used outside of WP. Darwinek (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are not standard ways to identify places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a Sudetenland category. If the articles are all in it already there is no problem, but it will prevent loss of data. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sudentenland per Peterkingiron. There is no need for a subdivision of towns in this area between Bohemia and Moravia. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I went to look at our article on Nitra and didn't find any "Category:Cities and towns in the principality of Nitra" or "Category:Cities and towns in Upper Hungary", it clearly is not common practice to categorize places according to their former sovereign territories so why on Earth are we doing it for this short-lived occupation zone? filelakeshoe (talk) 13:22, 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:Weapons of Australia in active service[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is categorizion by usage (I think they're intended for weapons in active service by the Australian forces), which is non-defining (see Category:Weapons by country) and membership of these categories is non-permanent. DexDor (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is doubly-bad, in that it's also an "operators" category - something that should generally be avoided - and a "current" category - which is something that should absolutely be avoided. There's quite a few more "active"/"modern" military equipment categories that should be given the boot, but this is a good start. (As a note, I've checked these and ensured that the one article on an acutal Australian-built weapon was properly categorised elsewhere). - The BushrangerOne ping only 13:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per The Bushranger summary. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we avoid present categories in almost all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 16 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.
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 All the current contents are categorized as hymns. Praise to the Man may not technically count as a hymn, it is in some ways more of an anthem, but it is published in a hymnal and classed as a hymn. There are nine more hymns by Phelps listed in the wikipedia article, some of which, such as possibly "Gently Raise the Sacred Strain", might be notable enough to merit their own articles. While Phelps also was a scribe to Joseph Smith and a printer, it does not apear any other works he produced are notable other than things that are hymns. The other possiblity might be to rename this to be "poems", but I think the hymns name goes best with how his works are treated and remembered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I was thinking to use that in the name, but we do not have Category:Hymns by writer or a similar category. On the other hand, these are all songs and they all have lyrics by Phelps. So they seem to fit into that category. On the other hand, if we ever got any articles on any of the songs written by Evan Stephens (I am somewhat surprised we lack articles on his works, but we do as of yet) I would put his works under Category:Songs by songwriter since he wrote the lyrics and music for many of them, such as "True to the Faith".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Fayenatic. I am not familiar with Phelps, but it appears he wrote lyrics for existing tunes only, if it transpires that he did from time to time also write music then I would automatically change this to Category:Songs written by W. W. Phelps (Mormon). WP, nor Mr. Phelps require 2 categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can gaurantee that Phelps never wrote any music for his hymns. He was the leading Latter-day Saint hymnist of the early years of the Church. If this was Evan Stephens, at least by number of productions the leading Latter-day Saint hymnist from the turn of the century, I would advocate the second type of name, since some of his works the lyrics were by others (though most he wrote the lyrics and music), but none of Stephens' works currently have their own articles, so that is not an issue. With Phelps though I am familiar with all his works listed in the article, not just the ones we have articles on, and can tell you for certain they all have tunes written by others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to JPL. I saw your amended target category, but did not read! What you may have thought of as bad faith was certainly not intended that way. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 16 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.
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: The company is involved in more locations than just Europe. Bbb2007 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this category is eligible for speedy renaming under criterion C2D. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alleged main article is a redirect to Liberty Global. I doubt we need an article on its European subsidiary. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 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.
