Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 12

< January 11January 13 >

January 12

Utrecht

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming categories related to Utrecht (city) and Utrecht (province)
Nominator's rationale: As with Groningen below, these categories do not make clear whether they are about Utrecht (city) or Utrecht (province). For this reason, I propose renaming:
AecisBrievenbus 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support per nomination. Arnoutf (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we already have a Category:People from Utrecht (province), which seems pretty fully populated, with a sub for Amsersfoot. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Groningen

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming categories related to Groningen (city) and Groningen (province)
Nominator's rationale: The following categories are all about Groningen (city) or about Groningen (province). Which of the two is concerned doesn't always become clear. I suggest renaming the following categories to conform to the naming of the articles.
AecisBrievenbus 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I would not mind seeing fewer overlapping categories; so some merger maybe an idea. Arnoutf (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) episodes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is misnamed/misapplied, amount of content (3 pages at present) is not enough to justify the need/appropriate of this cat; cat appears to have been deleted once before as well for similar reasons. MASEM 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have been unaware of the Lists of... category structure when I created the category. As I said here, that category structure more than suffices to categorize these articles without the unnecessary episodes category. Not really understanding why you feel the need for your confrontational attitude here... Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I've had to engage you I've tried to make an effort to engage you with respect, Tim, for the last several months. I don't claim that I've done a perfect job of it, so you needn't bother digging up examples that you feel illustrate the contrary, but I'm sorry that you're apparently holding on to things that happened a year or more ago when we initially had a combative relationship. If it makes you feel better for me to say I was wrong, then fine, I was wrong to create this category if the Lists of category structure already existed. As the creator of this category which was created in error, I renew my objection to it on the grounds already stated and continue to advocate for its deletion. I hope the rest of your day goes better than it's apparently been going. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Homosexuality and religion

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Homosexuality and religion to Category:LGBT issues and religion
Nominator's rationale: merge:Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex_and_sexual_identities, "homosexual" is not the preferred term. Also, the vast majority of Wikipedia categories (including Category:LGBT itself) use "LGBT", not "Homosexual(ity)". Also, there is no compelling reason to divide gay and lesbian religious topics from bi and trans religious topics. Alynna (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I would support this except that most of the articles use the word "homosexuality" in their titles, including the main article [[religion and homosexuality]. I don't like creating general naming policy at WP:CFD. I suggest trying to get a consensus to move the articles to names with "LGBT" instead of "homosexuality," and then coming back here. Generally, category names should match those of the articles they hold. If you do this, please also nominate Category:Homosexuality and Christianity, which has the same problems. LeSnail (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For some religions, these matters are treated differently, whether that is enough to split categories upon is another matter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Using "LGBT" instead of "homosexual" will bring together more similar topics and thus be of more use to our users. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The use of initials (abbreviations) in article and category names is to be deplored, as their menaing is not apparent to the uninitiated. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point that could apply to users whose first language isn't English. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles involving the Aztec Empire

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was keep, no consensus to delete. What to do with related cats/subcats not clearly established at this point, so no prejudice to any future nomination considering the related ones as a whole. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Aztec Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The 'Aztec Empire' didn't fight as a single unit. The Spanish conquest involved several entities (altepetl) within the empire fighting against another one. This can be treated more accurately using specific categories like Category:Battles involving Tenochtitlan, Category:Battles involving Tlaxcala, and so forth. Ptcamn (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete while an argument could be made that the Aztec Empire is as much a "country" as the Mongol Empire or German pre-1870 or other places where power is or was dispersed and central control does not or did not extend throughout the area (present-day UAE, Iraq, Colombia and other countries may fail such rigorous tests, however), however given that we have the subcategories we don't really need this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
?No sub-cats at present. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fluid. The one pointed out above and the ones at Category:Battles involving Nahuas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Rip their living hearts out, say I. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep My rationale being that the term "Aztec Empire" can refer to its component entities. Example: theoretical category entitled "Battles involving the High Elves" would actually be referring to battles fought by different ethnicities of High Elf under the one collective umbrella (given as the High Elves as a whole didn't ever fight a battle together). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only 2 articles, & per Suriel "involving" is vague enough to remove nom's objections. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also merge into this all the tiny sub-categories of Category:Battles involving Nahuas like: Category:Battles involving Tenochtitlan, Category:Battles involving Tlaxcala. These cats wrote the book for small and unlikely to grow - 2 articles & 4 cats!! Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging as per above recommendation Also clarification on my point: I was referring to Tolkien's High Elves. I applaud Johnbod for understanding the gist of a rather random comparison! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian musical instruments

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian musical instruments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Was apparently created to hold "piano", "violin" and "classical guitar" (which I removed because the first two are no more "Italian" than the automobile is "German", and the guitar is also known as the "Spanish guitar"). The only remaining item is the category "Ancient Roman musical instruments", which concept doesn't fit the modern concept of "Italian". RobertG ♬ talk 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nominator points out, there is a big difference between "Italian" and "Ancient Roman". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Originally held cello too, which I removed as not particularly Italian. I should have checked to see what else was in there. There aren't any specifically Italian instruments that I know of. LeSnail (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or delete the whole Musical instruments by nationality category. Piano was invented in italy?? So already we have an Italian instrument. Same thing Classical Guitar. It was invented in Italy?? Sp it's Italian. It aint an Italian Folk Music category, but an Italian Musical Instruments category. Which means instruments from ITALY.
PS. The one who nominated the category. Have you read the phrase: Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. written in the template??? So dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.182.44 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you would understand a little in guitars you would know that Spanish Guitar is a term to describe a TECHNIQUE and TUNING and NOT the instrument itself. Just like a Russian Guitar and a 7 string Guitar (thought here to many dont understand). You yourself said your an amature musician, while i'm a profesional musicologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.182.44 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you. Your opinions and your assertion that your credentials trump mine will be considered by the administrator who closes this discussion. I apologise if my nomination annoyed you. To be clear, I didn't empty the category while this CFD nomination was in place: I removed the category from the instruments first because in my opinion the categorisation is downright unhelpful, and then I nominated the category. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is also against procedure, and clearly makes comment here very difficult. Can an admin please restore the category as it was so that it can be debated please? Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not require an admin to restore the category as it was. Someone tried, and it seems the categories were removed from the articles again by someone else. You can put them back yourself if you think it's important. --RobertG ♬ talk 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the person who did it should restore them, if no admin will. I'm fed up with these improper nominations. I now see you are an admin yourself. You really should check out procedures before coming into an area new to you. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your talk page. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; pointless exercise in nationalism, and one of the most unhelpful ways I can imagine to categorize major instruments. The piano is an "Italian musical instrument"? Come on. Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty pointless overcategorisation. Would only be useful for instruments that were only used in Italy, not for those that may have been invented there but have subsequently spread worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems that the intention of the categories was probably to capture something of Italy's history in musical instrument innovation. I suggest that that's really a good topic for an article; it could start as a list but would hopefully eventually cover other things. --Lquilter (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea; could be quite an interesting article. I suspect that Wikipedia is underdeveloped in this particular area. Antandrus (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Professional wrestling champions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Champion professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:World Champion professional wrestling tag teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Professional wrestling champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns states "There is no ultimate source that declares which of the various wrestling promotions top championships have that status and views differ from promotion to promotion. The same happens with PWI. Hence this page is not supposed to represent the official view on which titles have world title status, it just represents PWI's point of view.". It is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to solely recognise one magazine's definition of what consitutes a "World Title". We don't even have any sourced information justifying why this magazine has the criteria it does.
  • In conclusion, the subject matter:
Is not appropriately sourced
Has no widespread credibility/recognition within the business (promotions recognise their own titles - we have references for this!)
Has no factual basis (these titles are not the only ones defended in different parts of the word)

If anyone wants to categorise wrestling world champions then they need to include (a) anyone who has ever held a belt named a 'World Title' or (b) nobody at all (WP:OR) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculously strong, prejudicial delete Thank you! Anyone from WP:PW knows my stance on the matter. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of this once and for all. Nenog (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first one, Delete the other two. PWI is considered the definitive source in wrestling. Including every title whose promotion calls it a world title would be a mess since there are dozens of promotions that call their main title a world title. TJ Spyke 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I intended to do this same nomination but got distracted. –– Lid(Talk) 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have little knowledge or interest in the subject, but assume that their are a limited number of bodies awarding the accolade "World Champion", as in boxing where I think there are three rival bodies. Even if there are a dozen of them, include them all: I would have thought it made a worthwhile category, but (as I say) I know little of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with that is several wrestling promotions call their title a world title. The main issue with this for the past couple of years as been the ROH World Championship. According to World Heavyweight Championship, in order for a title to be a true world title it has to have the potential to be defended against any challenger anywhere in the world. In 4 1/2 years the ROH World Championship has been defended a total of 14 times in countries outside the US. ROH has also brought in other wrestlers from promotions across the world to challenge for the belt. On top of that, the current ROH World Champion is British, and the previous one is from Japan. However, since PWI does not recognize it as a world championship certain people say it is not a real world championship. The problem with PWI is they are a biased, third-party magazine. Is it surprising that when there is professional wrestling in the US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, England, etc. the only titles an American magazine has recognized as true world championships come from US promotions? One of the current ones they recognize they gave world title status to right after it was created, and the belt is barely taken out of one building in Orlando, Florida. So despite the fact the magazine is biased, and that most people in the wrestling industry couldn’t care less whether PWI recognizes a title as a world championship, certain editors on Wikipedia say that until PWI says it’s a world title, it isn’t. Nenog (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guesstimate there are approaching 20 different "world heavyweight titles" in existance at the moment. That isn't counting ones which have discontinued. All a promotion has to do is give the title that name, and given that different promotions rarely recognise each other (the exception being the National Wrestling Alliance territories) there is no definitive criteria for legitimacy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asustek V series

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge and delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Asustek V series to Category:Asuktek mobile phones
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Upmerge to parent. Subcategory has one article; parent has no articles and only this one subcategory. Snocrates 09:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NZMA presidents

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:NZMA presidents to Category:New Zealand Medical Association
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Only one article in each category; should be consolidated. Apparently an article on New Zealand Medical Association doesn't even exist. Snocrates 09:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge: Even if the presidency of the NZMA changes hands every single year, a list will serve the purpose. The category is small, with very limited possibilities for growth. --7Kim (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ARC

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ARC to Category:Advanced RISC Computing
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and main article Advanced RISC Computing. Snocrates 09:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BPO companies

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename both as per nom. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BPO companies to Category:Business process outsourcing companies
Category:BPO companies of India to Category:Business process outsourcing companies of India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and main article Business process outsourcing. Snocrates 09:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ICT research institutes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICT research institutes to Category:Information technology research institutes
Category:ICT and development to Category:Information technology and development
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation, but use "information technology" instead of "information and communications technology" per main article Information technology and parent Category:Information technology and associated subcategories. Snocrates 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename per nomination, follow the style of main article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Max-Planck-Gesellschaft to Category:Max Planck Society
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use English name and per main article Max Planck Society. Snocrates 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:China NGOs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:China NGOs to Category:Non-governmental organizations based in China. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BMI

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename as nominated, for clarity. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BMI to Category:BMI (airline)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "BMI" is correct name I think, but it is ambiguous—see BMI. (I thought it was for "body mass index!) Main article is at BMI (airline). Snocrates 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artists' Rifles officers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was keep. No consensus to delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists' Rifles officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per January 2 CFD in which the members category was deleted. Same arguments apply to the officers cat. Otto4711 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Folk instruments

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Folk instruments to Category:Folk musical instruments
Nominator's rationale: A more exact name; in agreement with wikipedias in other languages. `'Míkka>t 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:26th Regiment Royal Artillery Association

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, misconceived idea for a category. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:26th Regiment Royal Artillery Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete it's well and fine that some former artillery folks want to get together throw a few back and reminisce about how they had Jerry on the run in '44, but alas, WP isn't the place to find your old pals. If this had been more serious, this is OCAT - not every regimental association needs to be the subject of a category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Xterra triathletes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete OCAT. Merge to {{cl{Triathletes}} if needed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xterra triathletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorizing triathletes by what competitions or formats they race on is OCAT - what's next? Category:Clay court tennis players? Category:IMP-scoring bridge players? etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tabloid television presenters and producers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, to subjective and fraught a categorisation. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tabloid television presenters and producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Tabloid television" is subjective at best, pejorative at worst, and why are presenters and producers lumped together anyway? Whatever, this deserves a deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roads in the Susquehanna Valley area

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, duplicate. Merge seems already to have been performed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Roads in the Susquehanna Valley area to Category:Roads in the Susquehanna Valley
Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recent video games

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, unmaintainable and not really useful. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recent video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete let's nip this in the bud; only one template here, but what is "recent"? Impossible to maintain, subjective, etc.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Selective school

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, now-empty and duplicate. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Selective school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete non-defining; schools that select their students by way of a selection process that may (and hence, may not) include yadda yadda. All schools have a selection process: for public schools, typically if you are X years old and live in the district you're selected. That's the US-style, any way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Defense Superior Service Medal

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Defense Superior Service Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete OCAT by non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People at the ESRI

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:Economic and Social Research Institute. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People at the ESRI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the 2 articles here; if kept, parent cats need to be found. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Panetolikos managers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Panetolikos managers to Category:Greek football managers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, premature to divide by team; there is only one article in the cat anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Masonic appendant bodies

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete and upmerge. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Masonic appendant bodies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the one article so classified (or the others mentioned in text). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Filipinos of Mandaya descent

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipinos of Mandaya descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary way to categorize Filipinos; the one article included does not mention this in the bio so WP:V reasons as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Descendants of Lakandula

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. The current members of the category are mentioned in Lakandula, so effectively already listified. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Descendants of Lakandula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete tracing decendents through 500 or so years of history makes those grouped so tangentially connected as to be trivial. What's next Category:Descendents of James I/VI - more of less contemporaneous with this person. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Completed Translation/bg

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we can't delete it as it's created by a standardised translation template thing. So that'll have to be keep and unorphan. Sorry, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Completed Translation/bg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete not particularly useful to have a completed translation category; if kept needs parent cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the comment on the page, I'm not even sure what this category is used for. It looks to me like a category where someone can request that certain articles be translated into Bulgarian. Isn't this therefore more amenable to some sort of Wikiproject request page? Delete. Snocrates 22:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Characters from the works of Tanith Lee

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters from the works of Tanith Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete unusual categorization criteria; characters from various works of a single author, probably a bad idea overall. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_12&oldid=1140264918"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 12, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.