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, with some accompanying clean-up. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic. Quite a few articles in the category aren't even about policy instruments. Also, we don't have an article Market-based policy instruments. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after manual restructuring: this seems to have started out as the category for Market-based environmental policy instruments; that article mainly refers to "market-based instruments" but has been moved to the longer, more specifically-understood name. Moreover, it now has a like-named subcat Category:Market-based environmental policy instruments. Only one category is needed, and it might as well stay at the longer name. That sub-cat will need to be moved into some parent categories of the nominated category, and some member pages might also belong in some of those. – FayenaticLondon 21:13, 15 November 2016 (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:procedural close of discussion, category no longer exists (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded, created in error UW Dawgs (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2016 (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.
Oppose. Merging into Category:Deaths by stoning will make Wikipedia less user-friendly. As is shown by the existence of the articles in this category, this type of malicious violence is a type of manslaughter in which the general public is interested. The category enables users to find instances of this type of violent mischief. Death by stoning is a form of ritual execution. These are 2 very different categories of things. Separating the 2 categories is dysfunctional. For me, usefulness to readers is the purpose of categories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The two categories covers two separate kinds of deaths and need to be kept separate. Not too happy about the current name though. Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason - two separate things. I'm not aware of a technical term for throwing rocks at cars but since it's equally possible to throw any heavy object(s), and to throw it/them not only at cars but also at vans or lorries with fatal consequences, would Category:Deaths from things thrown at road vehicles be an improvement? Eustachiusz (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Stoning is intentionally targeted at a specific person. Throwing objects at vehicles is a variety of random hooliganism. Totally different. No objection to broadening to include other objects thrown. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2016 (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: Contents seem to be WP:OR. Oculi (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This category used to be called Category:Guttural singers until User:Second Skin moved that to its current name with the edit summary, "'guttural singers' is an absolutely strange name for this cat and not accurate for what it's trying to describe". I suspect the proper category for guttural singers is Category:Throat singing. The nominated category seems indeed oddly named. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even this is wrongly named as throat singing is a dab page. Overtone singing is an article and guttural singing is not. If overtone singing is a defining characteristic of a singer (ie mentioned prominently in the article of the singer) then Category:Overtone singers would be a defensible name. Oculi (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are all really weird names. I think its current name is appropriate and it's just fine how it is. Second Skin (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category system does not exist as a way to create lists of every conceivable topic you might think of as a list — we categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics. And for the purposes of determining whether a category is appropriate or not, a defining characteristic is one that external sources routinely describe the subject as possessing. The very fact that a name has to be invented for this category, because it doesn't actually have a standard name in the real world, is in and of itself a reason why this is not a defining or categorizable characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back rather than delete. WE certainly cannot retain the present name, which has slanderous connotations. Possibly move back to guttural singers and provide a definition in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked a number of articles and none of them even mentions "unclean", "guttural" or "throat". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (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.
