Category:Ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation[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.
Mergeperformer by performance. Listifying is fine with me. Changed my !vote to selective merge to Category:Little ships of Dunkirk as appropriate - this would capture the ships which didn't normally perform these sorts of military duties but were pressed into service, and the Little ships of Dunkirk seems to be the defining linkage. The allies had many warships involved, and their involvement in this particular operation, or any other operation during the war, is not really defining of that ship; but the smaller non-military vessels you could make a case for. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. This is the sort of thing that is ideal for a list, but for a category, not quite so much. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comparison with Operation Neptune is inappropriate. Neptune (the Normandy Landings) used military (or naval) ships, whereas one of the defining factors of Dunkirk was the involvement of so many privately-owned vessels, including small craft. Many of those vessels are notable solely for their use at Dunkirk. Without that single operation, we simply wouldn't have articles on Aberdonia, Tamzine, Sundowner, or Seymour Castle. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's also Category:Little ships of Dunkirk (one of the problems with odd categories that don't form part of a larger scheme is that we get overlaps like this). DexDor (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being involved in an evacuation is not notable for a given ship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge of overlaps and listify the rest. This is an event of such moment that the normal rule on Performance categories should not apply, especially since the ships are unlikely to have made many other performances. The contrast is with actors, broadcasters etc who make dozens of performances. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep at least 3 of the non-small ships were sunk while in service for this military operation. This is the correct category for them to remain in as it is for the others also. Hmains (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep. A moderate preference for category v list. However I am opposed to a merger into Category:Little ships of Dunkirk which has a specific meaning - see lead para of Little ships of Dunkirk (and indeed much of that article's content concerns ships that were not "Dunkirk Little Ships", which needs fixing). Davidships (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (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:Snow College Badgers football coaches[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 to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is the standard naming convention by all college sports to drop "College" and "University" from their athletics nicknames. There is an occasional one-off exception, such as Boston College Eagles or Boston University Terriers, but 99% of college sports categories follow the proposed naming convention. The only reason this had to be brought to a formal CfD is because the renaming was opposed by the category's creator at speedy CfR. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snow College athletics consistently self-references as "Snow College Badgers." Their preferred naming convention is an infrequent exception of the same type already identified for other athletic departments in both the original speedy CfR and directly above. This is borne out with an exact string search of their official athletics site on Google:
site:snowbadgers.com "snow college badgers"
About 11,500 results
site:snowbadgers.com "snow badgers"
About 1,390 results
site:snowbadgers.com "snow college lady badgers"
About 30 results
site:snowbadgers.com "snow lady badgers"
About 6 results UW Dawgs (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it doesn't look to me like they self identify as "Snow College" consistently. Look at this recent basketball write-up. The team is consistently referred to as "Snow," as opposed to "Snow College" or SC. Look at any Boston College, College of Charleston or Boston University sports article. Those schools are literally never referred to without "college" or "university." If they need to abbreviate, they use BC, CofC or BU. Why wouldn't Snow use "SC" if they are adamant that it is "Snow College?" Rikster2 (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Regardless of what the college uses, what's the WP:COMMONNAME here? How are they referred to by ESPN, Sports Illustrated, etc.? - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The school is a junior college, which doesn't generally get coverage on major sports sites. Rikster2 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The common name claims are false. For example, with BYU, they are normally referred to as the "BYU Cougars". It is not a universal practice to drop the term "College" from the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; BYU is one of a minority of college sports teams along with the Boston College and Boston University examples given above, where the "University" or "College" is retained in the team's "short name", in this case in acronym form; see Category:College sports teams in the United States by team. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is UCLA. There is clearly enough counter examples to show that we can't just assume Snow College will follow in the example of other places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is assuming anything when the school itself refers to itself as "Snow" in their own athletic communications (see my link above). Even to the point where the article says "the Snow men did such and such," which sounds ridiculous. It is clearly different when a school uses an abbreviation with U in it vs. spelling out "College" or "University" Rikster2 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re story The cited story is without a Byline (AP, Snow College, Athletic Dept, Student, or other). It is nearly verbatim with the version found at the Daily Herald, also without a Byline/Attribution. So I challenge the blanket assertion of "own athletic communications." Regardless, rather than pointing to instances of (valid) counter examples, I point you to the athletic's website in total and the associated Google search results which demonstrate Snow College's clear preference by an order of magnitude of difference (11,500 vs 1,390 results). UW Dawgs (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was posted on their athletic site, so it appears like they condone/don't mind the use. At a minimum they don't seem particularly "brand sensitive" about it. And your searches of "Snow Badgers" don't prove a lot when you have a representative example that just says "Snow" a ton of times (without "College" or "Badgers" after it) - search terms just aren't going to pick that up. At the end of the day, though, I really don't care and won't argue this anymore. It is a category with two people in it for a podunk JC that gets almost no indepedent coverage - not even sure the category is needed. It isn't worth spending any more debate time to me. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Snow (College)'s branding guide does not speak of how to refer to the school (i.e. forbidding use of just "Snow"), but it does, in all instances that I noticed, refer to itself as "Snow College" and never "Snow". — X96lee15 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty definitive, including "The institutional logo should not be altered or modified and should be used in its entirety. Snow without College should only be used with permission from the Snow College Brand Manager." There are 185 references to "Snow College" in their brand guide, vs 13 to "Snow *" with non-self referential context such as "The Snow 'S'" and "Badger Blue and Snow Orange." There are 4 references to "Snow College Badger" and none to "Snow Badger." UW Dawgs (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2014 (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 This is not defining for the specifies involved. As a broader comment, I think we have to consider why we have categorized some animals for literally all the countries they are found in, including San Marino and Gibraltar. At times the number of categories some animal articles are included in borders on the ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2014 (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: Since the "Czech" part of this category refers to the nationality and not the ethnicity, it would be more accurately placed at "Czechoslovak", much as the Russian people are in the "Soviet" category, as referred to the nation at the time of the individuals being cosmonauts. C679 11:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The demonym is Czechoslovak. C679 10:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Czechoslovakian is the demonym [1][2] and an adjective form [3] -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not conclusive, particularly as Merriam-Webster uses both forms. C679 12:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominated, oppose "Czechoslovakian". As both of these cosmonauts' careers during the period in which the country was the combined Czechoslovakia, "Czechoslovak" is the correct term to use here, and as such I've changed the parent category from Category:Czech people by occupation to Category:Czechoslovak people by occupation - and, as the category tree in question uses "Czechoslovak" exclusively, "Czechoslovakian" is incorrect. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Whether "Czechoslovak" or "Czechoslovakian" is a better term, should be considered with a discussion of the whole tree, since we have such categories as Category:Czechoslovak writers and many others that use that term. We should either leave them all that way or change them all, not one at a time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2014 (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:Interim and Acting Presidents of Israel[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: According to Israeli law, the Speaker of the Knesset acts automatically as interim or acting president when the presidency is vacant or the president is abroad. When the speaker is abroad while being acting president one of the deputies acts as president. basically this is part of the speaker's job definition, and has been practiced several times (Katsav fiasco was long so it was noticable). No real category here. DGtal (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a clear and defined position, just a result of other positions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2014 (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: That some members of a species have been kept in an aquarium is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the species (e.g. see CFD for pets). Some of the articles (e.g. Stickleback) make no mention of aquariums). Could upmerge to Category:Cold water fish, but I'm not sure that these belong in that category (which is under Category:Edible fish). For info: The Coldwater fish article contains much more comprehensive lists. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly not defining of the species, unless you're in an aquarium store.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic of the fish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2014 (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:listify, then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems more than just a club award, more significant than usual. Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Within the field of ornithology, this is an extremely defining award. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles in this category don't mention the award in the lead and some (e.g. John_Gummer) don't mention it in the text at all. This is not an ornithology-specific encyclopedia and for people like David Attenborough and Charles this is just one of many awards they've received. Additionally, (unlike things like Nobel prizes) some of the recipients of the award don't (yet) have an article so the category does not create a complete list (i.e. the list forms a better list than the category). DexDor (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not an ornithology-specific encyclopedia", true, but it's also WP:NOTPAPER which is something oft forgotten. If the articles don't mention the award in the text, then that needs to be fixed in the articles, not by removing the category. "The list forms a better list than the category" is something I don't recall seeing before and is also something I'm not sure is a reasonable argument as to why the category shouldn't be kept - "the category doesn't form a complete list", er, so? - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The question is, is this award defining to recipients. In the case of many recipients the answer clearly is "no". If we have articles that make no mention of the person receiving it, than we should scrap the category. Awards categories are supposed to be limited to a very few. When some articles literally have over 50 awards cats places on them, we need to make major chances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LIstify then delete -- as we nomrlaly do for award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2014 (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:Musicial groups from Shizuoka Prefecture[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: spelling mistake; asked in my user talk page as a page move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2014 (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 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:Medal of Honor Recipients from Virginia[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.
Delete The intersection of state and award is not warrented in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (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:Members of the Archivists Roundtable of Metropolitan New York[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.
Delete and possibly listify. In almost no case should we have a members cat for an organization for which we lack an article. However, the vast majority of organizations that have articles do not merit membership cats either. Membership in this organization is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation, we do not want to listify at all. I am not even convinced either of the two people who are in this category are notable, but even if they are, I see no reason to create a list for this unnotable group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2014 (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: I can't figure out what this category is for, or why it includes the word "pure", which is not mentioned in the head article Khukhrain. Unless someone can clarify the purpose and scope of this unparented category, it should be deleted. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 17 February 2014 (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:Foreign Members of the Cambridge Astronomical Society[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.
I don't see any reason to assume that there is anything defining about being a foreign member of an organisation whose name is unclear and whose non-foreign members are not categorised. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly not notable. The one article in the category is on someone who looks to be at best marginally notable, but the article is plagued by lots of unneeded detail. It also seems odd we have birth years for her parents but not her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2014 (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 merge, since the creator supports merger. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. Go ahead and remove it. Д-рСДжП,ДС
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: Duplicate category, so merge and redirect. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I understand it, this is not a duplication. "British India" refers to the time when the UK had political control of India, while "Indian" refers to the time period after independence. So, it is akin to "Victorian British civil servants" and "21st century British civil servants". I also think that "civil servants" is broader than "Civil Service officers" as not everyone who works as a civil servant is an officer. LizRead!Talk! 15:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The target refers to an organization that ceased to exist in 1947.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2014 (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:Prisoners of conscience in Azerbaijan[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.
upmerge per nom, the target is sufficient.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2014 (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: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only 2 articles for now, and as AFAIK, there aren't many more sites in Israel which could fit this narrow intersection. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There should be quite a few. I was a bit lazy when I made the category, but I'm hunting for a source that gives a nice list. For now I have the additions of Aphek, Hazor, Lachish, and Tel Yarmouth (which currently lacks an article) to those lists. I'm pretty sure Ashkelon could be added as well. Mind you these are only ones specifically referred to as having palaces in the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land-except for Lachish, which I got from Lachish I. This is also only from a cursory glance of this one source and I can't do any in-depth research until Friday... maybe. Also, was I supposed to put keep or rebuttal, or something else? Never done one of these before... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar I 5774 16:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Flinders Petrie:. Thanks v much for that thoughtful response, and for demonstrating that my nomination was based on the inadequacy of my knowledge. Since the nomination was so clearly misplaced, I have struck it out, but I won't close the discussion yet in case any other editors want to add something. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@BrownHairedGirl: Quit being so hard on yourself! It's solely a function of my having access to harder to find books in two restricted-access places that makes referencing easier, and as a result of having prior experience with those books as a result of painstakingly searching for little bits of information on a specific site. Difference in access-to-resources is all that's at-play here, and it's not rare for even the best-regarded experts in this area to have a very narrow breadth of knowledge on a number of topics within the discipline. In fact, for this specific topic, after reaching out to colleagues, I only found one measily chapter in a book dealing with this subject, which thankfully expands the list a litte. So we have Tel 'Sera, Tall al-Ajjul (in the Gaza Strip), and possibly Shechem (possibly, thanks to there not being detailed field reports by the excavator). For the nomination, yeah I think it's best to leave it open, yeah. That way there can be recommendations for improvements/rationale for change. In fact, I think it might be best to rename it to Bronze Age palaces in Israel and Palestine, as at least one of the sites is in the Gaza Strip and the source is from 1992 (the presence of the palace hasn't changed, but the political boundaries have). Though that name might cause contention. Any way to frame that doesn't invoke Israel and Palestine? Southern Levant, maybe? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Adar I 5774 19:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Flinders Petrie: Thanks for your kindness, but I wasn't really being hard on myself. I was just pleased to find an XFD discussion working at its best! When I lived in the areas, I wasn't much into archaeology, so my nomination was based on the hope that if evidence existed that I was wrong, someone would provide it. I was pleased that you did :) I am wary of your suggested name change. The usual approach to geographic categorisation is to follow the current administrative/political map, and avoid combining areas; I can find no other Israel and Palestine categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Petrie, esp since nom has withdrawn.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2014 (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: This category is for "Institutions of higher education established under international law, by intergovernmental organisations or by treaty." The current title does not describe the full scope, and is probably misleading in the case of the United Nations University ... but I can't think of a better title. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per DGtal. I cannot think of a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The European University Institute is not only a university that was created by an intergovernmental organization, it is an intergovernmental organization. According to the article, the Asian Institute of Technology attempted to transition to becoming an intergovernmental organization, but did not ultimately do so. I think the proposed Category:Universities created by intergovernmental organizations is probably a fair one, even though it might not capture the full nature of some of the contents. It is, at least, true for all of the contents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:16, 4 March 2014 (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.
Merge Not a significant enough body to categorize by membership. Whether it needs an article is another issue, but it having an article would not justify this categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2014 (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:Doctor of Arts Programs in the United States[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: appears to be a misplaced addendum to the head article Doctor of Arts. It contains no articles about Doctor of Arts Programs. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a needed category. We seem to have no articles about such programs themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2014 (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: parent category is not big enough to need splitting by continent. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 17 February 2014 (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: per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. This category is described as being for "companies Financed and/or controlled by entities controlled by J.P. Morgan". How much finance and/or how much control? BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete esp since it includes companies financed by Morgan. This could be a long list, and it's not really defining who financed you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reasons already provided, it's worth noting that even if such a category were warranted this would still not be its correct name under any of our naming conventions for categories. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've also been under the impression that we needed to be very careful with "former" categories. In this case, I would hold that Category:JPMorgan Chase would be the way to group any article that had a defining connection with the firm. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nature of modern finance means that who finances you is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2014 (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 It seems the person who created this may have added some text on people who lack biographies, but it does not make any sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriate page created by inexperienced editor who may have intended a list; there is no need to convert it as the editor has not provided anything to indicate notability. – FayenaticLondon 20:25, 20 February 2014 (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:split; will be placed at WP:CFDWM where anyone can take the initiative to do the splitting. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split. This category is a strange collection of animators, animation directors, and films. The parent Category:History of animation (which I just added) consists of articles about the history, whereas this just seems to replicate the whole of Category:Soviet animation. Rather than combining people and films inj one category, it would be better to use the two existing categories and create a new Category:Soviet animation directors for the directors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (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: per WP:SMALLCAT. Eponymous category for the current President of India, Pranab Mukherjee. Currently contains only 1 article, and I have not been able to identify any more which belong there apart from Mukerjee himself. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Tito☸Dutta 12:11, 17 February 2014 (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:Albums produced by "Weird Al" Yankovic[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: Redundant category. He hasn't produced anything but his own albums, and he is not known primarily as a producer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not need all schemas when the same person produced and did other things on albums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2014 (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.
