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. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Platinum Triangle (Los Angeles) - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Suggest we delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Hard to see how this category can grow beyond its current contents (with a main article that after three years is but a two-sentence unreferenced stub). Not much interest in this triangle, it would seem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

keep as part of a pattern of articles and categories found in Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California. Size does not matter when patterns are involved. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - small category with no growth potential. Its two sibling categories (for Hollywood and for historic preservation zones) do not constitute the sort of widely-accepted scheme contemplated as exceptions to WP:OC#SMALL. Lead article is more than adequate to link the contents. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I could not agree more. It's just plain silly to have a category for this area, which is not a formally recognized zone or neighborhood -- and certainly is not a widely used term. I no longer reside in Los Angeles, but I do live in California, and I've never seen or heard this term before. I was amused to discover that the great majority of G-hits for "Platinum Triangle" are actually for a different area located in the adjacent Orange County, Platinum Triangle, Anaheim, California. Cgingold (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs sampling previously recorded songs - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Songs sampling Marvin Gaye songs - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Songs sampling Stevie Wonder songs - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic, simly trivial, often hard to verify, indiscriminate information. See below for similar CFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with nominator. I created the parent category after my previous nomination of Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs resulted in KEEP. See WP:CFD/2010 Mar 1. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The parent, under a slightly different name, was deleted in an even earlier CFD. See WP:CFD/2009 Feb 26. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And similar categories were deleted in 2006. Delete as non-defining of the songs. "Songs by technology or technique" is fairly trivial. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete – per nom. The previous unanimous keep re Kool is rather bizarre as this is an incidental rather than defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; speedy as G4 if at all possible. Sampling is a common and fairly standard musical technique now, no more inherently defining than any musical instrument that may or may not have been used in a song's recording. We don't, for example, have Category:Songs featuring mandolin, Category:Songs featuring theremin, Category:Songs featuring guitars, etc. — so we don't need this either. And going back to the old Kool & the Gang discussion, I just gotta say: if it's really true that most people now know Kool & the Gang more for their popularity among samplers than for their original songs, then I'm clearly getting fricking old. Bearcat (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete both. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs based on songs written by George Clinton (musician) - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Songs based on songs written by Prince (musician) - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining category. Some of the articles here barely mention the song it was "based on" and others just say it uses a sample of the artist's song, which hardly means it is based on the other song. Maybe just upmerge to Category:Songs sampling previously recorded songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete not a defining characteristic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Non-defining. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-defining category. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete both. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Country Singles number-one singles - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Canadian Country Singles number-one singles of the year - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:BADCHARTS and this AFD, the Canadian country music charts published by R&R/Nielsen shouldn't be added to articles. This category no longer serves a purpose, as all the peaks in these articles have been removed for lack of verifiability. Also listing subcategory Category:Canadian Country Singles number-one singles of the year. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. per rationale. Nowyouseemetalk2me 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Slavic American Jews - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category and its sub-cats make no sense. First of all, they are extreme three-way intersections that don't serve much of a purpose except to overflow articles. Secondly, "Slavs" and "Jews" are distinct ethnic entities and not all Jews have direct Slavic ethnic influence. This list pays NO ATTENTION to religious observance. It is a purely ethnic list which houses nearly all individuals who had at least one grandparent that was Jewish and came from a territory that was AT SOME POINT under the rule of a Slavic nation. This does not make them SLAVIC AMERICAN JEWS, merely Jews. Further, the category is way too encapsulating: Christopher Guest is included in the Category:Russian American Jews because his maternal grandparents originated from a territory that was once Russia. It's silly and unnecessary. Soundsboy (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - At the moment I mainly want to point out that this category is purely a container category which is being used to group together half a dozen sub-cats; it's not being applied directly to articles. I also want to note that the category has not been properly tagged for CFD -- the template is totally screwed up. I would suggest starting over and trying to do it correctly; if you still can't get it right I'll be more than happy to help you. Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Calling a Bukharan Jew who emigrated from the Russian Empire a "Slavic Jew" is an obvious nonsense (as if "Slavic Jew" wasn't enough). But it's exactly what happens when countries of origin (that is, countries as territorial entities and nothing more) are grouped based on their language or ethnicity, especially using a common demonym that has no use outside of the field of language/culture/ethnicity. "Slavic umbrella" (or "Romance umbrella" or "Gaelic umbrella" etc.) may be relevant only in matters of common language and culture. East of Borschov 10:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per East of Borschov. The subcategories of this are fine; the mistake comes when trying to group them together as 'Slavic people', when they may not be. Many Russian people are Slavs, but that doesn't necessarily mean Russian Jews are Slavs. Robofish (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete As noted above, Jews and Slavs were two distinct ethnic groups. Were they not, life would have been a whole lot more safe for the Jews, I'd warrant. Except in cases of intermarriage (which this category is not meant to address) there were no Slavic Jews, just Jews who cohabitated in countries alongside Slavs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note This name was arrived at as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_16#Category:American_Jews_by_national_origin. I know these intersections are meat and drink to CfD regulars so I'll leave you to it. Rich Farmbrough, 06:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Pittsburgh

Nominator's rationale: Change the category name to match the article, with resides at Pittsburgh. A number of sub-categories are already under this naming convention. GrapedApe (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. We've been down this road before. All U.S. city categories including Category:Los Angeles, California, Category:Chicago, Illinois, and so on contain the name of the state. The article name is not the only governor of how categories should be named.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep – per many similar cfds and rename any subcats which are out of synch. Occuli (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Mike Selinker, and because Pittsburgh, PA is not the only Pittsburgh (we've got one right here in California, and I'm pretty sure there are others). Cgingold (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, however, the only one well-known enough to have a valid claim to the plain name Category:Pittsburgh in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. There's never any genuinely useful reason for a category not to be named to match its head article; if the name were actually ambiguous enough that ", Pennsylvania" was actually necessary in the category, then the article could never have gotten moved in the first place either. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Men known for their penis size - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Useless, subjective, will end up as a vehicle for porn actor promotion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Not subjective; sources are required to place articles in the category. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• — Note to closing admin: Stonemason89 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. ~~~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Large and small are subjective, I don't understand how one can claim that they are not. Changing this to a specific size would make the inclusion criteria arbitrary which would also likely result in deletion. Also the name of the category lacks precision. Is this for long/short or wide/narrow? If this is sourced, Listify before deletion if someone has the interest. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment While the articles are sourced, the length of each penis is rarely the actual subject covered.:
  • The article on John Holmes mentions: "He was best known for his exceptionally large penis, which was heavily promoted as being the longest and thickest in the porn industry, although no definitive measurement of Holmes' actual penis length exists."
  • The article on Matt Majors details the medical condition of his penis, him having Hypospadias.
  • The article on Jeff Palmer mentions actual measurement. But the claim to fame for his penis is that it was used as a mold for sex toys.
  • The article on Grigori Rasputin mentions a reputation of having "an unusually long penis". Compared to what?
  • The article on Long Dong Silver has an estimation on the length of his penis. Based on the recollections of a photographer.
  • The article on Lexington Steele has his own statement that "God blessed me with an abnormally large penis that allows me to make porno." Which says something about his religious beliefs but nothing substantial about his penis.
  • The article on Vince Vouyer simply mentions: "When Vouyer first entered porn, he was known for several years for his very long hair, large penis size and chiseled body." Nothing really on its length. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - pretty much a recreation of the deleted Category:Men with unusually large penis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion - perhaps instead of deleting, we could expand its scope. Might I suggest renaming it to "Category: Penis size"? That way, it would be for any article that relates to the topic of human penis size. Articles we could place into that category include ExtenZe, Enzyte, Penis enlargement, Micropenis, Stunt cock, Small penis rule, etc, in addition to Holmes, Long Dong Silver, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - there is Category:Penis for the topic and people should be left out of penis-related categories (although it might be conceded that for a few of them their penis is indeed their salient defining feature). Occuli (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Stonemason89 Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Occuli. This is not defining for some of those included, and at the end of the day the others who are included are there essentially because of subjective appraisals. If any absolutely need to be linked the topic, a simple upmerge to Category:Penis could be done. And this is pretty much a re-creation of deleted material, in any case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete; recreation of previously deleted material. We don't categorize people by hair colour or eye colour, or height or weight; we don't categorize people by whether they have more or less than standard number of fingers and/or toes; we don't categorize men by the presence or absence of body hair, or women by the size of their breasts; and on and so forth. Generally speaking, we usually don't categorize people by physical characteristics of their bodies, and this isn't really a very useful exception to that. For one thing, it's a category that, with the exception of a handful of porn models, can only ever be applied on the basis of unreliable sources such as rumours and leaked sex tapes. So the only people who can ever be reliably added to it are those who are notable specifically for showing off their manroots in public — and we already have Category:Male pornographic film actors for that anyway. Bearcat (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete and if possible, protect from recreation; this category or one like it has been deleted several times. It's the textbook example of an unverifiable category (not to mention one that raises WP:BLP issues). Robofish (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. CTJF83 chat 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:State University of New York at Stony Brook to Category:Stony Brook University

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match title of parent article Stony Brook University, which is already reflected in the title of the child Category:Stony Brook University alumni. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename (?) - I am currently working on articles related to Stony Brook University. This seems to be a more logical name, because it is the way everyone refers to the university. It is much less cumbersome. The standard is already mixed because we have Category:State University of New York at Stony Brook faculty but then we also have Category:Stony Brook University alumni. While the longer convention used for all the other SUNY schools, (such as Category:State University of New York at Albany alumni, etc, I feel this should be changed in this case, since Stony Brook is one of the major "flagship" SUNY university centers (along with SUNY Albany), and is usually referred to just as "Stony Brook University", not as "SUNY Stony Brook". This is reflected on SBU's website and administrative press releases.Danski14^(talk) 22:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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 both. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:2nd-century Byzantine people and Category:3rd-century Byzantine people to Category:2nd-century people from Byzantium and Category:3rd-century people from Byzantium or similar

Rationale: "Byzantine" usually refers to the Byzantine Empire (from 330 on), while here it is used for the citizens of the Greek city of Byzantium. In order to avoid any confusion, a rename should be in order. Constantine ✍ 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. "Byzantines" prior to 330? Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to avoid confusion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, but as Category:3rd-century people from Byzantium (city) for extra clarity. Why is Saint Hermias here? Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wesley Clark - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for an American politician and military commander which unlikely to grow and currently contains only 3 articles. TM 05:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; as I just said in the strikingly similar CFD for Category:Ben Cardin: there's simply no need for this category, as the two ancillary articles are well & properly linked from the bio article. Cgingold (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - small, unnecessary and unlikely to expand. Robofish (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Mosques by Arab cities to Category:Lists of mosques by city

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No reason to limit this category to "Arab cities". Also fixing capitalisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. No reason to single out Arab cities. Dimadick (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Category:Mosques by city since there are only two entries here. If more lists can be found then I'm okay with nom's rename suggestion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I found and put two more in the category Category:Mosques by city. Hmains (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. The category will have 6 entries, and certainly could have more in the future. Hmains (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename. Jerusalem is not an Arab city. It's a JEWISH one. Chesdovi (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Columbia University Teachers College alumni to Category:Teachers College, Columbia University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match title of parent article Teachers College, Columbia University, making category easier to find for readers and editors. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Igbo writers by genre - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has no members and two subcategories, each of which has only one entry, and each entry is identical (Nnedi Okorafor). The "Category:Igbo fiction writers" is exactly the same as this (no entries, two subcategories each with this identical entry). This is kind of weird.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It looks like the categories' creator (all one editor) got a little carried away with things. This one certainly is not needed -- it just impedes navigation. Cgingold (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Cgingold (who is well-nigh infallible on these matters). Occuli (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Cgingold. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jihad satire - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is a neologism based on original theories and conclusions and the article it was based on (Jihad Satire) was deleted for the same reasons. I propose that the accompanying category be also deleted. Tec15 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - original research and probably unverifiable. Most of these articles are already in categories such as Category:Satirical films anyway. Robofish (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Webcomic characters. — ξ^xplicit 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Order of the Stick characters - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Now that all the characters have been merged into Characters of The Order of the Stick the only article in the category is the aforementioned article, which could just as easily be categorized under Category:Webcomic characters instead. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete and Upmerge lone article to Category:Webcomic characters.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete and Upmerge to Category:Webcomic characters. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_7. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Indian national agencies to Category:Government agencies of India

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplication. Although national agencies and governmental agencies are not synonyms, the guidelines of the nominated category says "Indian government agencies". If kept, all Indian agencies categories should be reorganized, e.g. category:Government agencies of India should be a subcategory of category:Indian national agencies. Beagel (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Actors portrayed posthumously - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Awkwardly named and defined category. Uncertain that it is a defining characteristic of the actors listed. I would have expected to see Charlie Chaplin and Andy Kaufman (and many other actors with a biopic) as actors portrayed posthumously by other actors. What about actors whose clips were used in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to something more defining. The current name is a little vague, which is likely to lead to confusion over who should be included and who not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Biopics often portray dead people. I don't think this is a defining characteristic for anyone, actors or otherwise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - certainly worthy of mention in a "legacy" or similar section within the subjects' article but non-defining of the actors who would be included. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a biopic is certainly a defining characteristic of the film; having had a biopic made of their lives is not, in and of itself, a defining characteristic of the film's subject. Bearcat (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Chairpersons of MMDA to Category:Chairmen of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose expanding abbreviation to match article Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. The definition of the word "chairmen" is sufficiently encompassing to also include females, and as far as I can discover this particular organisation's head is usually referred to as a "chairman", not a "chairperson". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Hebrew Bible people and Category:Giants. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Hebrew giants to Category:Hebrew Bible giants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think "Hebrew Bible giants" is what was intended. The giants included in the category are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but not all of them are Hebrew people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename but Category:Biblical giants will do fine. There are none in the New Testament. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Since there are none in the NT wouldn't this fit better as a named subcategory of Category:Hebrew Bible people than the broader Category:Biblical people? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Hebrew Bible people. I think this is a relatively small cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No objection to that, but note that if that is done, it would also need to be merged to Category:Giants. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's better if we keep Category:Giants as a cat for each member articles rather than treat it as a parent cat to Category:Hebrew Bible people if the merge will push through.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Why would Category:Giants be a parent of Category:Hebrew Bible people? Did you mean Category:Giants as a parent of this category, whatever it is renamed to? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

<reset>Okay, I think I wasn't clear enough. Add Category:Giants to the articles alone (Goliath can be categorized with both cat:giants and cat:Hebrew Bible people) but not as a parent for Category:Hebrew Bible people. I'm oppose to a rename and prefer to merge Biblical giants to cat:Hebrew Bible people.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. I've no objection to that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Hebrew Bible people. Individual articles can be recategorised in Category:Giants as appropriate. Robofish (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Diamonds Are Forever (film) - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Didn't we decide that we were going to manage these categories since listing every location is not notable for it's appearance in the film? There are many building in NYC or LA that have literally appeared in 100's of movies. I suppose we might ctageorize the characters in some way, so deletion is only the nomination. Don't know where we will end up. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete – the sort of random hotch potch which gives eponymous categories a bad name. Occuli (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If there is support for this one, there are a bunch more. I seem to remember something similar in the past. If someone can find it, maybe we can speedy some of the group. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• There was this cfd which takes care of the locations. There is Category:James Bond characters for the characters. Occuli (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Purge. Las Vegas Hilton, Las Vegas Strip, and Magere Brug need to be removed, but otherwise, this seems like a legit set of entries for such a category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There are 21 other categories in this group that have the same problems. Inclusions there include articles like Buckingham Palace and Ford Thunderbird (eleventh generation). If this is kept, how do we keep these clean of articles like these? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We remain ever-vigilant.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - small category with no growth potential. Unnecessary for the material, some of which is miscategorized to begin with per the recent deletion of the Bond locations category. All the material is linked through the article on the film and each other. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary for navigation, given that most of these articles are linked to each other, and there aren't enough directly relevant to the film to justify a category. Robofish (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Liam Howlett - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one entry, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. There are now 20 entries, and probably more to add. Also I thought that single entries were acceptable for large category schemes like songs by artist and songs by songwriter (providing article on artist/songwriter exists), if this has changed I'd like somebody to point me to the where I can update myself with the relevant information! Richhoncho (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Canadian BDS Airplay number-one singles - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Chart is unverifiable; none of the articles in this category use a source for the BDS airplay chart, and a search for verification of chart positions turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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 all. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:NFL Europa to Category:NFL Europe

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• What about all the Europa subcats? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Subcats added on 04:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:NFL Europa executives to Category:NFL Europe executives

Propose renaming Category:NFL Europa logos to Category:NFL Europe logos

Propose renaming Category:NFL Europa standings templates to Category:NFL Europe standings templates

Propose renaming Category:NFL Europa players to Category:NFL Europe players

Propose renaming Category:NFL Europa teams to Category:NFL Europe teams

Propose renaming Category:NFL Europa coaches to Category:NFL Europe coaches

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Classified documents to Category:Leaked classified documents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. From the introduction, documents that were once classified, but have become known or partially known to the public. The current name would imply that all previously classified documents belong in here. The proposed name is just one to get the discussion started. I don't like it, but I could not come up with a better suggestion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure I understand your concern, VW. Regardless of how these documents have become known to the public they are still correctly described as "classified documents". Are you saying that we need to make a distinction between these classified documents and other formerly classified documents that have subsequently been declassified? We could always create a separate category for "declassified documents", if there is in fact a need for such a category. Cgingold (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yea, there are at least 3 types of classified documents. Those that are classified, that that were declassified (does the amount of redaction in the document affect this) and those are are classified but have been leaked. There is also another type here that would be more difficult to document where they have been stolen. The introduction restricts this to only those that have been leaked so the title should make this clear. At some point in the future, this could be recreated as a parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• The point I'm trying to make is that there are really only TWO basic "kinds" of classified documents: those that remain "classified", and those that have been officially "declassified". The fact that a particular document has been leaked to the public has no bearing on its ongoing status as a "classified document". It remains "classified" until such time as it has been declassified. I don't think there is any real need for a category for articles about classified documents whose contents are completely unknown to the public because they have not been either leaked or declassified, since by definition it would be impossible to write anything of substance about such documents. Am I missing something? Cgingold (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Let's look at one of the current articles, Iraq Intelligence Commission. First, this is not a document but a commission. Second the commission published at least two reports from what I can tell. One was the Unclassified Version of the Report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and the other was a classified report that likely included the material in the unclassified report. So it would appear that the document intended for here was never classified, well is was classified as unclassified. Bottom line we need to rename to clarify what should be included or totally rewrite the introduction and clean the category out. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would certainly agree with you that the intro is badly written and should be junked. No doubt there are a number of articles that ought to be removed as well -- the one you picked out being a case in point. This is just another example of a perfectly valid category which has been mis-applied by fuzzy-minded editors. Cgingold (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Cgingold. I can't see the proposed rename helping; much too specific. It could of course be set up as a sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps As mentioned above, the bigger problem with this category is that it is being used to hold lots of things that aren't documents in any manner. Beyond that, I'm not sure that "classified" is the right word, nor does "leaked" seem to fit the bill either, as both are too narrow. I'm doubtful that there is any useful difference to be made between documents kept secret under a formal system of classification and those which are simply kept secret; likewise, I'm not sure that there is a reason to differentiate "leaks" from other revelations of governmental secrets. If there is, however, then this category should not be renamed. In any case it needs to be vigorously weeded. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree there are technically only two different types. The recent Wikileaks controversy dispelled rumors that leaked classified was no longer classified. See here for more. The Navy report cited in that article though used the term "publicized classified information." I think "Classified documents" is misleading for a reader and navigation, maybe "publicized classified information" or "compromised classified information". It still cites that the information was/is classified but it puts what type of articles are in the category into better context.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As I recall from the good old days, one type of classified document is 'unclassified'. Also remember the another issue, what might be unclassified in the US, could be a state secret in China. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unclassified is a classification, like confidential, secret and top secret. So I guess if it is unclassified, it has been declassified or was never classified to begin with. A newspaper is unclassified per the government. I see what you are saying about what is classified in different countries. I am not sure how that would play into the category name though.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• There are a number of category members referring to foreign documents/situations where American notions of secrecy classification may not apply. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't think this category needs to be broken down further by classified/declassified, or by how the documents became public; that would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Robofish (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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 all. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Electricity in France to Category:Electric power in France

Propose renaming Category:Electricity in Iraq to Category:Electric power in Iraq

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardize name to match that used by the remaining siblings. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally propose renaming Category:Electricity in India to Category:Electric power in India Beagel (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support . User:Amarnath aravabhoomiAmarnath aravabhoomi (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Green energy certification schemes to Category:Sustainable energy certification schemes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Green" is a less formal and poorly defined compared to "Sustainable". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, also noting that Green energy is a redirect to Sustainable energy. Resolute 15:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Manicouagan hydroelectric project to Category:Manicouagan-Outardes hydroelectric project

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The power stations on the Outardes River of the Outardes portion of the project now have articles. The project is also know as the Manicouagan-Outardes hydroelectric project as well. NortyNort (Holla) 03:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging renaming Category:American German language newspapers to Category:German-language newspapers published in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge to match common format and remove possible miscategorizations. TM 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• do not upmerge, rename if necessary Any upmerge would lose the fact that these newspapers are published in the United States, which is the primary purpose of grouping these articles together. Hmains (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about upmerging? I wasn't thinking and used the upmerge template rather than the rename template, but the proposal clearly says it is a name change.--TM 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom, consistent with other sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• ok rename per nom to match the other categories. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, fits pattern. --Soman (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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 rename per speedy criteria C2A and per category creator's consent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:African Methodist Episcopal Churches to Category:African Methodist Episcopal churches

Propose renaming Category:African Methodist Episcopal Churches in Ohio to Category:African Methodist Episcopal churches in Ohio

Nominator's rationale: I'd like to see "Churches" decapitalised, simply because it's not part of the name. Yes, the denomination is African Methodist Episcopal Church; however, while nearly all other Christian denominations are "_____ Church", we always name our categories "_____ churches", such as Category:Presbyterian churches, Category:United Methodist churches in the United States, and Category:Roman Catholic churches. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Replace I'm the creator of this category, and I mistakenly capitalized the name. • Freechild'sup? 08:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: Items like this qualify for SPEEDY RENAMING. Cgingold (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by JB Rudd - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Precedent is that songs don't get categorized by songwriter if the songwriter doesn't have an article; see Category:Songs written by Zack Turner and Category:Songs written by Cory Batten as two examples. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and established precedent. Robofish (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:T*Witches to Category:Twitches

Nominator's rationale: Was tagged a while back but nomination not completed. I am guessing that the rationale was presumably that this should be changed to match the main-space article names which are of the form "Twitches (blah)". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. 'T*Witches' may be how the book covers are formatted, but our articles use 'Twitches' (and I don't think there's any likely possibility for ambiguity there). Robofish (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 6#Category:Marimba players. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Marimba players to Category:Marimbists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term marimbists is shorter, and is also analogous to the term vibraphonists (vibraphone, another keyboard percussion). See Category:Vibraphonists. --Opus88888 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep -- Absolute consistency is not vital. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Green electricity by country - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Both articles are already included in Category:Renewable energy in Foo which should cover this topic without a separate tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Small and confusing category. Beagel (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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 to Category:Electric power by country. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Electricity sector by country to Category:Electric power sector by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the main category and the name used by most of the subcategories. If this passes, we probably need to rename the subcategories that don't follow this form. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment. Is sector really necessary? East of Borschov 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, all of the articles seem to use it. I would not object if you want to suggest Category:Electric power by country. But I have this nagging fear that we may be forgetting something if we did that. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Category:Electric power by country. There is no need to add 'sector' in the name. Beagel (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Category:Electric power by country as this is what the articles are all about. No reason for extra words not used in similar cats. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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 to Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Foreign-language newspapers published in the United States - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Non-English newspapers published in the United States. Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States (I agree, that 'language' is an essential word here, --Soman (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)) 'Foreign' is a complicated term in Wikipedia context, and particularily so regarding the USA. By the logic 'non-English' = 'foreign', a Navajo language newspaper would be classified as 'foreign'. Soman (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support renaming, but "Non-English" doesn't seem right. I'd support subcatting all of the articles into their particular language homes and renaming this category something else.--TM 01:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps 'Newspapers published in the United States by language'? --Soman (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• rename per nom This is what they are and this is what the category description says they are so make the name match. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• oppose as the current category name is the most common name for it in the USA. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per nom to Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States (agree with necessity of including "language", per Cgingold below). The U.S. has no official language, and as Soman has pointed out, not all of these are "foreign" to the U.S.—some, like Navajo, are entirely indigenous to the U.S. I could also support Category:Newspapers published in the United States by language, but this would of necessity result in the exclusion of the individual articles, which would leave only the subcategories. I think the continuing use of "foreign language" in American English when what is really meant is "not English" is somewhat a generational thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would question putting Navajo-language newspapers in the category for precisely the reason that they aren't foreign. Likewise, establishing "non-English" as the determining feature implies that English is the de facto national language, because otherwise one categorization could not be substituted for the other. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Spanish a foreign language? It has official status in parts of the US, and in some states Spanish was spoken before English. --Soman (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto with French in Louisiana. Is French a "foreign language" in Louisiana? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rename - but to Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States. We're dealing with language here -- not nationality or ethnicity, so "Non-English-language" is the precise term. Also, we are not "establishing" anything, we are simply reflecting & describing what all of the sub-cats have in common. Cgingold (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Non-English-language newspapers published in the United States. 'Foreign' should definitely be avoided, and 'non-English-language' is clearer than 'non-English'. Robofish (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Rosario to Category:Rosario, Santa Fe

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom (and per Rosario (disambiguation)). Not sure whether the subcategories need to be renamed as well. Robofish (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Mike Dekle - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Precedent is that "songs written by X" categories get deleted if X doesn't have an article. X doesn't have an article and isn't likely to; his credits show only one other song which is not notable enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - no need for this category at this time. Robofish (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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: deleted long ago by other admins. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose deletion Category:U-19 Cricket World Cup

Propose deletion Category:U-19 cricket teams

Propose deletion Category:U-19 Cricket

Propose deletion Category:Under-19 Cricket

Nominator's rationale: Three new categories have been created due to a change in a naming convention. These categories no longer contain articles or have any links going to them.Waterhogboy (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – this nomination should be 'rename to Category:Under-19 cricket' etc. Please link to the consensus for this change. Occuli (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion WP:C1 (empty category). (Three of them have been deleted this way already.) Robofish (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Old requests for Cartoon Network peer review - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This Cartoon Network peer review hasn't been used. The category was created in 2009 by Dylanlip and it hasn't been added since. JJ98 (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, under criterion WP:C1 (empty category) - apparently isn't being used. Robofish (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:African-American culture to Category:African American culture

Nominator's rationale: Per parent and child categories —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename Relative categories aside, the main article is African American culture and its own parent is African American. Neither uses or mentions hyphens. Dimadick (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• On the other hand there is guidance somewhere that Fooian-American is the adjective for Fooian Americans (no hyphen) (which supports African American but not African American culture). Occuli (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming - Occuli is quite right: hyphenation is grammatically correct in the case of the adjectival form. In this case "African-American" modifies culture -- just as "20th-century" modifies literature. In both cases there is understood to be a clear distinction between the hyphenated adjective ("African-American" or "20th-century") and the un-hyphenated noun ("African American" or "20th century"). Cgingold (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hyphenation is grammatically correct; article name is incorrect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• oppose rename the article, not the category to match our standards. Many children/grandchildren of Category:African American also need to be renamed. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fred Perry - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only two entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Categories about persons are supposed to include several articles concerning them, relative people and events. This doesn't qualify. Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are more articles or subcats to be found. (Clothing?) Occuli (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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 delete under G7. Thanks to Farjad0322 for their swift action. — ξ^xplicit 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Userboxes by Farjad0322 - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT as the category does not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of Wikipedia. The content can be saved on a user subpage. — ξ^xplicit 03:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy delete —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - I am the creator but since I was not aware of such guidelines. I made the category in good-faith and did not meant to violate any rules. Please do not delete the templates it carries. I will recategorize them into Category:Favourite subject user templates. Farjad0322 (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved them to another place. Farjad0322 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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: reverse merge. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Merge Category:Field hockey at the Commonwealth Games into existing category Category:Hockey at the Commonwealth Games, which contains most of the applicable articles. Title “Hockey .. etc is unambiguous, as Ice Hockey or Indoor Hockey are not Commonwealth Games sports, although the Olympics uses the category name: Category:Field hockey at the Olympics. Hugo999 (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge the other way. Parent category is Category:Field hockey competitions. Hockey is ambiguous and most people are not aware of the exact sports played at the Commonwealth games. Occuli (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reverse merge per Occuli.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reverse merge Consistency is valuable here to minimize confusion to the reader. The category should retain the field hockey name. Resolute 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ben Cardin - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with only 3 articles concerning a U.S. Senator that is unlikely to grow. Cardin was elected in 2006 and lacks any significantly notable accomplishments during his time in the Senate. TM 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete His signifance is barely established at this point. Perhaps if he gains a long and storied career. Dimadick (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete – there is 'what links here' for this sort of stuff. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete but link via template or navbox. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Regardless of Cardin's accomplishments or lack thereof, there's simply no need for this category, as the two ancillary articles are well & properly linked from the bio article. Cgingold (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Eponymous categories aren't necessary or warranted for the vast majority of people; presidents and prime ministers, sure, but almost never senators. Bearcat (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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 as proposed. Ruslik_Zero 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Mad Men (TV series) - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per the lead article Mad Men the disambiguation is unnecessary and the rename reflects the category's contents. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question - is this really so controversial a change that it needs another week? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Rename to match title of parent article, in a case where disambiguation is not needed. Alansohn (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Modified support I agree absolutely that there should be an episode category, I think the only reason there isnt's is that articles on individual episodes is a relatively new phenomenon. However, rather than renaming the category, it would be better to create Category:Mad Men episodes, then keep this category (without the disambiguation) as an overarching category for episodes, characters, the episode list, the lead article, and other related pages (see Category:Lost (TV series) for example). It should be noted that Category:Mad Men was previously deleted, but this was back in 2007 when there were fewer articles and the show was less notable. From the discussion it seems that category was only used as an image repository for underdeveloped articles back then. Lampman (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support rename: This category only contains articles about specific episodes. Comment: Although this category says its main article is Mad Men (TV series) (which is a redirect to Mad Men), that article isn't even contained in it! :-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Trinity College (Connecticut) alumni to Category:Trinity College, Hartford alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent article is Trinity College, Hartford and there appears no reason not to have the category title match that of the parent article. The discrepancy is a barrier to editors and readers hoping to find the category from an article. Alansohn (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• REname per nom. It should obviously match. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Clarion Writers' Workshop - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - trivial fact – they attended a small workshop for sci-fi writers – that tells you nothing about them. No need to listify and articles already have much more useful lists.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Not a small workshop at all. It is probably the most venerable and highly regarded writers' workshop in the science fiction literary world. It's been around since 1968, lasts the entire summer, with instructors such as Neil Gaiman, Harlan Ellison, Orson Scott Card, and Octavia Butler and has produced such graduates as Nalo Hopkinson, Cory Doctorow, Geoffrey A. Landis, Vonda N. McIntyre, and Bruce Sterling. If the Iowa Writers' Workshop may have categories for alumni and faculty, why not one for the Clarion Writers' Workshop? (I'd also like to point out that there have been many more faculty and prominent alumni who have not been classified in the category yet).Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The difference between Clarion (which is a 6-week program) and Iowa (which is a 2-year program leading to an MFA degree) is significant. The latter has parallels to our college alumni categories, while the former does not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, the Iowa comparison is poor. However, this is still perhaps the most serious and intensive speculative fiction incubator in the field. A full-time six-week program is not a small workshop. The Clarion West Writers Workshop article is better than the Clarion Workshop one, and gives a better sense of its scope and history. A very large number of serious speculative literature figures have come through the Clarion workshops. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Clarion is a long-running and successful program with two branches in the US and one in Australia. Authors who have gone through Clarion refer to the experience throughout their career and have often talked about learning to write in a manner which indicates similarities of technique, even if there are not similarities of style or theme in their writing. Shsilver (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Clarion veterans come out of it with a certain air of esprit de corps that is significant, and of note within the history of the field. I will also point out to the original nominator that a significant portion of the science fiction community considers the term "sci-fi" a pejorative, and its use revelatory of an attitude of contempt towards the genre and its practitioners. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  I assure there is no such attitude on my part, and I've never come across it in a pejorative sense – it's just a common abbreviation of science fiction, so widely used it's almost interchangeable with it, and not likely to be confused as e.g. "SF" could be. In particular I can't imagine it would be used to name major TV channels if it were widely considered negative.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  You would be amazed. And it is within the community that the term is regarded as an insult. Those outside don't even seem to notice, and this includes network executives, who are a part of the Hollywood community, not the community of whatever happens to be the theme of their network. I believe the person above was giving you a gentle heads-up. Please recall, many offensive terms have been common. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  That major TV channel (now known colloquially as the SyFyllis channel) is run by "the suits": exactly those who display the most blatant attitude of contempt towards the genre and its practitioners; that's why there is almost no actual SF on the channel any more, not even in the limited sense in which most television "science fiction" can be deemed science fiction. Instead, it's a hideous blend of wrestling, ersatz "reality" occultism, and monster movies. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a significant credential in the sci-fi world. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - No solid opinion on merits of category. If kept rename to Category:Clarion Writers' Workshop alumni (analagous to Category:Iowa Writers' Workshop alumni). Cgingold (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Except I believe the category as it exists includes both teachers and alumni.Shsilver (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In that event, an obvious solution would be to split it into two renamed categories -- if it's retained. Cgingold (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as a defining attribute of the individual participants and an aid to navigation across the articles so tagged. Alansohn (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize films for awards they are nominated for, only for ones they actually win, per WP:OVERCAT. Also, this is the only sub-cat of Category:Submissions for Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award (by country) that has it by country. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. There is already a relevant list, so this subcategory is clearly overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dungeon graduates - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - non-defining of the people in the category. Per Chris Jericho's autobiography, "membership" in the "Dungeon" was open to anyone who ponied up a couple thousand dollars and showed up. There was no "Dungeon"; the "Dungeon" was promotional hype drummed up by the Hart family wrestlers for a payday. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep A lot of former WWE/WWF/WWWF/WCW/ECW/NWA/AWA/World Heavyweight Champions and legendary wrestlers have went through the Dungeon. During its heyday, it was one of the most sought after places to train and it was in one of the toughest territories in the North America or the world. The Dungeon was the nickname of the basement in the former Hart Family house where they trained. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, a lot of future champions trained at the Hart camp, which was not in the Hart's basement and for a decent portion of its existence had no affiliation with the Harts at all other than their name. So did a lot of people who paid the entrance fee and never accomplished anything in the world of wrestling. Not that this is dispositive but in all the years I watched wrestling I never once heard an announcer say that a wrestler was a "Dungeon graduate". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, they have made reference to people whether it be in TNA or WWE that they've trained in the Dungeon. They've made numerous references in the WWE that TJ Wilson is a Dungeon graduate. Whether he is the last one is debatable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sportspeople by training location seems like an especially bad precedent to set. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Good Ol'factory - not a defining characteristic. Robofish (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:The Movement albums to Category:The Movement (reggae band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article The Movement (reggae band). There are multiple bands called The Movement, including The Movement (dance band). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Rename to match title of parent article and to properly disambiguate in a situation where it is needed. Alansohn (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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. Whether the category should use "railway" or "railroad" can be dealt with in a future nomination. — ξ^xplicit 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Railway cuttings in the United States to Category:Railway cuts in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To better match the name of the main article. I have not proposed moving the British one since I think that is a US/UK difference. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are right as to UK usage. Should it be Railroad cuts in US? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of Category:Rail infrastructure in the United States uses railway so this should for consistency. It could be that railroad is the more correct term, but I'm happy to deal with that issue later across that group of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems that "railway" may have been more predominant in U.S. usage than "railroad" originally, I think (i.e. many of the older railway companies in the U.S., it seems, used "railway" in their names, instead of "railroad" (e.g. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway)). However, I think the usage of "railway" instead of "railroad" here in the U.S. may possibly be more of a personal preference, actually. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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: Keep both. Ruslik_Zero 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Road cuttings to Category:Cuts (earthmoving)

Propose renaming Category:Railway cuttings to Category:Cuts (earthmoving)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the main article. Both of these are thinly populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. No problem with that provided Category:Road cuttings and Category:Railway cuttings are reinstated as redirects. UK usage is 'cuttings'; and the proposed 'Cuts' is meaningless within UK. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• change some other way this is not just a rename it is a merge. Railway and road categories should be kept separate so they can fit into their railway and road parents. Hmains (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I see the other options being of the form Category:Cuts (road) or Category:Road cuts. Would either of those work? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In thinking about this, I'm not in favor of keeping the split for the reason raised. In the end it affects a total of 2 articles which can be manually modified if needed. All of the subcategories already roll up into transportation type specific categories on their own so loosing that information at this level should not be a big deal. One of the articles is also in the more specific infrastructure category and the other is in a transport category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the normal UK terminology. A "cut" is slang for a canal, which may be described perjoratively as a "dirty cut", probably with the implication that it smells becuase the water is stagnant. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• [Weak?] Oppose (I guess): I would have said Support (the categories are pretty vacant... :-), but per Peterkingiron's comment above, I guess I'll have to say Oppose. Even though I'm an American, we've got to respect the way people in other countries talk. Also, in my humble opinion, the word "cutting" seems to be/sounds more correct than "cut". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 03:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Health issues in pregnancy - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Randomly added to a number of medical articles. There is barely a medical condition that cannot become a health issue in pregnancy, and I therefore regard the category as very unhelpful. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Thank you for notifying me about this CFD, Jfdwolff -- much appreciated. However, when you describe it in broad-brush terms as "Randomly added" to articles, that is a gross mis-characterization. Even a cursory perusal of the contents confirms that it is being used as intended, for articles that deal with health issues that arise during and are of particular concern during pregnancy. I created the category as a natural intersection of Category:Pregnancy and Category:Maternal health, in order to improve navigation by pulling together articles which were randomly strewn among the diverse contents of those parent categories. Like any other category, it's always possible that articles may have been added to it inappropriately. If you have found one or more articles that don't really belong there, please identify which ones. In all likelihood, all that is needed here is a bit of judicious cleanup, such as any category might require from time to time. Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the category is potentially limitless. You need to restrict it to articles that are specific to pregnancy, such as Gestational hypertension and so on. This is why I felt that the selection of articles currently included in the category is "random". JFW | T@lk 06:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You say it's "potentially limitless", but in actual practice it looks to me like it's being used properly. And you've again used the word "random", but you still haven't identified which articles meet that description. Please be specific. Cgingold (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think this is necessarily random, but I don't think it's defining for many of the conditions listed, like Asthma, Hypertension, Obesity, Epilepsy. If kept, it should only be applied to articles about things like Maternal obesity or Effects of smoking during pregnancy, not the more general conditions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good grief, Good Ol'factory. If the presence of a small number of inaptly categorized articles was grounds for deletion we would have to delete half the Categories on Wikipedia. Seriously. To repeat what I said above, "all that is needed here is a bit of judicious cleanup, such as any category might require from time to time." Cgingold (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've examined the 4 articles that you identified, G/O -- which is what I asked Jfdwolff for repeatedly -- and I would have no problem with removing them from the category as none of them include substantial info dealing with the subject of this category. Cgingold (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess my comment is better read as a vote to "clean up" drastically. Sometimes, users don't want it cleaned up—they think it's fine as it is, so I guess I was just saying delete if it was going to stay as-is. I should have known those in this discussion so far would be willing to clean up. The problem is, I would expect many more of the articles currently in the category to not belong there. Being a health issue in pregnancy is not defining for most of these. You said above you think it's being used properly, but I just selected 4 obvious examples of misfits. They are by no means the end of the problem. That's why I suggested that if this is kept it should be limited to articles that are explicitly about pregnancy health issues only. Why are cancer and cirrhosis included, for example? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just taken a more thorough look than time permitted when I made my initial "cursory perusal of the contents", which did confirm the presence of a great many articles that unquestionably belong in the category. But I see that there are a fair number of recently-added articles that do indeed need to be cleaned out -- more than I realized. What's reassuring is that they were all added on one day by a single editor (our colleague User:TyrS) -- and equally important, this CFD was posted that very day. In other words, the category was in top-notch condition up to that point -- and Jfdwolff could have simply cleaned out the errant articles, having spotted the problem. Cgingold (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Well, if it lasted that long in good condition, then I've no problem keeping it and cleaning it out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep To answer Good Olfactory (above), a category doesn't have to be defining to be applicable and relevant. (And when you say it should exclude "the more general conditions" do you mean all pre-existing conditions? You mention only obesity and smoking. Are you proposing that the category should focus only on the possible effects of women's lifestyle choices on pregnancy? This would defeat the category's purpose as - as explained by Cgingold, above - an intersection of information on pregnancy and maternal health.)

To answer Jfdwolff's comments, I recently added several articles to this category based on research I've just been doing for this article (just moved into the public pages; it's by no means perfect, but is much needed; and on which, by the way, I hope to get some informed feedback and contributions). So no, they weren't added randomly - please refer to that article for the appropriate citations which have informed my rationale in adding these articles to this category.--TyrS (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• General consensus over the months and years has been that a category should generally be defining for a topic. This is generally a higher standard than "applicable and relevant". My comment was meant to say that it should only be applied to topics for which its relation to pregnancy is one of its defining features, regardless of whether or not this is a pre-existing condition or a lifestyle choice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the case of this category may make it a bit different from many others. Aren't categories sometimes used in order to collate information? As far as I'm concerned, though (and I don't know how Cgingold feels about this) I suppose an alternative solution might be to include this article (would it then need to be called 'Health issues in pregnancy' rather than 'Risk factors...' though? Hmmm...) in the 'See also' sections of the relevant conditions.--TyrS (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• As I just said in my reply (above) to Good Ol’factory, the four [all of the] articles in question should be removed from the category because none of them have a significant amount of info dealing with pregnancy. I didn't know that they had all been added recently by a single (very well-intended) editor who simply didn't realize that categories aren't really supposed to be used in that manner. As for See also links, that might possibly make sense -- use your own judgement on a case by case basis. Cgingold (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 03:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Stoner metal musical groups to Category:Stoner rock musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Stoner metal redirects to stoner rock and Category:Stoner rock musical groups is defined as "bands identified as being of the stoner rock or stoner metal genres." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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, which was taken care of by creator of category. I've converted the former into a disambiguation category. — ξ^xplicit 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Worms to Category:Worms, Germany

Nominator's rationale: Extremely ambiguous, I would've expected this category to be about worms. — ξ^xplicit 17:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Worms, Germany would be fine for me too, if there was a bot to do tthe renaming....--Symposiarch (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  If the nomination succeeds, a bot will create the new category and move the contents shortly afterward. — ξ^xplicit 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with nominator. Current name is just too ambiguous. __meco (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Serbian actors. — ξ^xplicit 03:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Serbian actresses - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per our naming conventions and e.g. CFD from 8 August 2006. Category "Serbian actors" is sufficient. Darwinek (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The debate was from 4 years ago, wouldn't a better category be Category:Serbian actors and actresses? Lugnuts (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a pattern for such category names? I am afraid all related categories are in "actors" form. - Darwinek (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that should all of the film actor categories have "actors and actresses" in their name, instead of just actors? Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting idea. However I think, it would be such a large change, it would require a discussion at WikiProject Films and/or other WikiProjects. - Darwinek (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Serbian actors. Except at the Academy Awards, "actor" is a noun that comfortably encompasses men, women, and children. My dictionary actually defines the word as "a male or female who performs in a play or a film". Changing to "actors and actresses" would be a huge change to hundreds of categories for very little gain, and there isn't a need for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Serbian actors. (There is a downside to this as it removes the actresses from Category:Serbian women. So perhaps there should be 2 upmerges.) Occuli (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Usually we don't categorize women for just being women, I guess because it kind of implies that being a man is the default status. The FOOian women categories are usually reserved for subcategories only, like by occupation categories or "Executed FOOian women". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Serbian actors. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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. — ξ^xplicit 03:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles needing infoboxes to Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles without infoboxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While this is a useful category for WikiProject Biography, the category name should be descriptive, not prescriptive. This should actually be applied to the whole tree of categories under Category:Biography articles without infoboxes. Yworo (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom - many in fact should not have infoboxes, per the editors and other projects concerned, especially for example artists. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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 and partially upmerge. Ruslik_Zero 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States Department of the Treasury - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Global Terrorists - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Listify and partially upmerge. Firstly, we should only categorize organizations designated as terrorists, not individuals. The parent categories in this hierarchy already reflect this, and this principle has also been established in previous CfDs. Secondly, the United States designation scheme is complicated and unwieldy and as a category structure it provides more detail than what is practical and useful. I propose that these categories is listified and that entries which are organizations be upmerged to Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government. __meco (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support nomination in full—this is a very sensible suggestion. It makes sense to have just one "designated terrorist" category per government—the rest of the details can be sussed out in list articles. There has been unneeded proliferation of these for every government entity that designates organizations as terrorist, and there is a lot of overlap. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This is exactly the point I made in the recent CFD that -- unfortunately -- resulted in the renamed Category:Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Global Terrorists. No other country has comparable categories for specific government agencies. Cgingold (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As Good Ol’factory said, this is a very sensible suggestion but I support your nomination. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Merge there appears to be no benefit to navigation by breaking this down by the U.S. government agency that has designated the organization, and merging will combine all such organizations as a group. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- We need the fact that they are designated by government agencies as terrorist to avoid POV issues, but we do not need to break it down by agency: ideally one would expect all US government agencies to use the same list, but presumably they do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Parapolitics - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Parapolitics" has a couple of unrelated meanings but it seems to be most commonly used by conspiracy theorists, which is what two of the four articles in this category are about. The inclusion criteria aren't clear and Category:Conspiracy theories already gathers together articles about that kind of thing. Prezbo (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - unclear inclusion criteria, and redundant to other, better categories. Robofish (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Spiritual theories - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: What are the inclusion criteria of this category? This seems like a more-or-less arbitrary combination of religions, philosophical positions, superstition, and folk traditions. I can't figure out what belongs here and what doesn't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Inclusion criteria definitely seem very obscure. This category was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user if that's relevant.Prezbo (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - too overbroad to be useful. I considered renaming to Category:Religious theories (which would more accurately reflect the contents), but that would seem to be redundant to Category:Religious belief and doctrine and its subcategories. Robofish (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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: Keep. Ruslik_Zero 12:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Objectivism to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article and Objectivism; not sure if any subcat.s need to be renamed as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Karol (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as the rationale is backward; there is no other distinct encyclopaedic topic of "objectivism" which would merit a category of articles – the name of the article is what is at fault, not the perfectly cromulent category. Skomorokh 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support because current articles in category are all relevant to her views. And because at some point someone may want to put the various people/ideas mentioned in Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivism in a more general objectivism category. Or maybe they have already but as soon as they saw all the Randroids recoiled in horror :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - there are several uses of the term 'Objectivism', but this seems to be the most widely-used one, at least on Wikipedia. I suppose there is some potential for confusion with Category:Objectivist poets, but that seems to be the only other category with 'objectivist' in the title which isn't related to Rand's movement. I could accept this being renamed, but the subcategories really should be kept as they are rather than being renamed to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) scholars, Category:Objectivist (Ayn Rand) organizations, Category:Objectivist (Ayn Rand) philosophy, etc.; that would be both ugly and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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: Keep. Ruslik_Zero 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Transport museums in Alaska - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: A category with nothing but one subcategory that contains only a single article. To the best of my knowledge there are no other transportation museums in Alaska with Wikipedia articles, if and when there are this can be re-created. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Every other state has this category. It may be small on the state level, but is useful at the larger level for finding transport museums by state. Jllm06 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

keep as part of an established pattern of subcats of Category:Transportation museums in the United States by state which I just added to this category as it was missing. Hmains (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Jllm06. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the subcategory then, isn't it a bit silly to have two categories that serve only to categorize one article? Or would that also be inconsistent with the sacrosanct established pattern? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Transportation museums in Alaska to match normal American usage and the existing parents, Category:Transportation in Alaska and Category:Transportation museums in the United States by state. Yes, this would mean some additional renames, but this is a place to start. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• even better than just my 'keep' above. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada’s Gold Medal - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Having created this one myself, I'm now not so sure this meets Wikipedia:OC#Award_recipients. Is a top prize from Canada's national architectural institute truly defining for its recipients? I'm really not sure. Arguments against: Canada is a relatively small nation, population wise. Today, most of the Canadian architects who have achieved any great recognition have had to do so by working outside Canada... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Air Dispersion Model articles - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Air dispersion modeling. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete, seems redundant to parent cat. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Kipling stories with characters from the administrative class - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with other similar Kipling categories, seemingly all created by one very industrious editor a couple of years ago, it seems unwise to group stories based on the perceived class or status of one or more of its characters. Note that this is not limited to stories whose central character is of the "administrative class" but conceivably could contain any story in which such a character has a single line of dialogue. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. These categories can be uncontroversially deleted either under C1 or G6. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Current sports as of August 2010 - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete No idea what this category is supposed to be. Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete – we have Category:Current sports events, populated by {{Current sport}} (and containing a record %, surely, of user pages). Occuli (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment it's actually being populated by the "date=" parameter in {{Current sport}}. Bencherlite^Talk 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Christian anti-Zionism - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as POV. Pichpich (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep What POV? It is noting that some anti-zionists are christian, as opposed to the many who are muslim. Certainly nobody argues with tagging David Duke or Pat Buchanan as a christian anti-zionist. What is non-neutral POV being promoted? Bachcell (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe both David Duke and Pat Buchanan would reject the label. That's a problem. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It also implies that their anti-Zionism is connected to their Christianity in some way, which is a blatant SYNTH violation. So, Delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete as absurd attack-by-labeling. Is this connected with Wikipedia Editing for Zionists? Flatterworld (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete I don't really think its POV but I fail to see the reason anti-Zionists should be disambiguated by their religious beliefs. The similar Category:Anti-communists disambiguates people by country or origin, not by whether they are Christian, Hindus, Pagans, etc. Dimadick (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary subcategory of Category:Anti-Zionism. (Category:Jewish anti-Zionism is worth keeping, as the two are directly relevant - but Christianity and Zionism don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.) Robofish (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Miss Guatemala winners to Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match similar categories in Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. But that's wouldn't be correct, I mean Guatemala's beauty pageants-related categories aren't much developed here, besides you can just create additional Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners, but deleting Category:Miss Guatemala winners would be unreasonable, there's for a lot of countries such category exist, see Category:Miss Russia winners, Category:Miss USA winners, Category:Miss Canada winners. And also this category more precisely indicates in which category these people won the title, in this case it's - Miss Guatemala. Userpd (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The category would be read as "winners of the Miss Guatemala" competition, and thus is more analogous to Category:Miss America winners or Category:Miss Brasil winners. The simplest solution may be simply to reparent this category directly under Category:Beauty pageant winners, although given the small size of the category and likelihood it will remain small in the near term, I have no objection to the nom.- choster (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment, like I said, Guatemala beauty pageant-related categories / articles almost aren't developed here, concerning about the small size - it's not an argument, «Rome was not built in a day.», we should always start from something. You better write about other Guatemala contestants, that'd be more helpful. Userpd (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – I think a Miss Guatemala should be categorised under 'Miss Guatemala', not merely as a 'Guatemalan beauty pageant winner'. (These are probably all delegates to Miss World.) I would probably go with the creation of the intermediate Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners which seems neater: I expect some Guatemalans can be found who have won competitions elsewhere. Indeed there is Ilma Urrutia. Occuli (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep then create Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners as parent cat. -Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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.