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.
For the sake of clarification; I am the creator of the category.
Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk (SL) was a public transport administrator that was merged to form
Ruter as of 1 Jaunary 2008. The category contains all the companies that were under contract with SL for operating public transport in Akershus. Because of this I feel that the category has served its purpose well, but that
Category:Public transport in Akershus is a better way of organising the articles. Perhaps I should have nominated a merger instead. Sorry for the rather non-clarifying rationale. Arsenikk(talk) 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People from Bolivian cities
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.
Kbdank71 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename - the disambiguation does not seem necessary. The latter two proposed categories are currently disambiguation pages which lead to categories for Bolivian "departments" (districts), but I think that in other similar cases the addition "(city)" has been deemed unnecesary.
EliyakT·
C 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep use of the disambiguate tidy yet reduces ambiguity
Mayumashu (
talk) 01:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep all per roundhouse as disambiguating means of specifying city vs. larger geographical division.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
keep all for the good disambiguation reasons shown. The purpose of naming is to help the WP reader, not push some abstract theory to be in their way.
Hmains (
talk) 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Songs from Paris
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 in view of the creator's comment below.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the lead article
Paris (musical) and reduce ambiguity that these are songs that originated in one or another city named Paris.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rappers with adjective names
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.
Kbdank71 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Alcotts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - although there are at least 2 others,
Louisa May Alcott and her mother
Abby May. I expect Otto can work these into a 'navigational hub' somehow. It is bizarre to have a whole town as a subcat of 'The Alcotts', and the 2 articles 'in' the category are added in an unorthodox fashion.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep but Rename to
Category:Alcott family - I've just completed the work of cleaning up & filling out this category, which now has 7 articles in it (and two parent cats).
Category:Concord, Massachusetts, of course, should be removed -- reversed would be more like it.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
7 family members and a house is more like it, and is probably now a weak keep - nice work, Cgingold (although I had notified the creator already, and you didn't!). If kept, rename per Cgingold.
BencherliteTalk 09:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Er, quite right -- I saw that you had already done so, but forgot to come back and delete that. :)
Cgingold (
talk) 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - the articles are all extensively linked through each other and the category is still small with no apparent further growth potential. Listify the contents at
Alcott family and delete the unnecessary category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Panjsheri People
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.
This qualifies for Speedy Renaming.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Panjsheri Authors
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.
This qualifies for Speedy Renaming.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2001 Windows-only games
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.
Kbdank71 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
was looking for some advice on how to do that in one fell swoop, but thought I would wait until feedback from this one
MrMarmite (
talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to be pointless over categorization. a) Why would anyone be interested that much if a game was available on another platform apart from Windows and b) what about games that start out as Windows only and then get ported to another platform much later. The fact that this category is then broken down further by year strikes me as even stranger. I would get rid of all the platform only categories
ACarPark (
talk) 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose There many thousand Games are already sorted, we simply do not want to see to the consoles multi-platform shit, where the developers often saw only the money and the world market of all systems! --
Fairseeder (
talk) 08:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. Which version of Windows? Do items stay in this category if a later version will run on something other then windows?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose If something changes, the category also changes, this never was a problem. For every Windows version own category would be exaggerated, many windows has a compatible modus, this is not comparably with the porting on all systems. --
Fairseeder (
talk) 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Windows-only games
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.
Kbdank71 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I have no idea what you wrote.
PowersT 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. That a game runs on Windows is defining and notable. That it only runs on Windows is not defining (meaning I don't see the use of browsing the category), and can be deduced from the lack of other-platform categories on the article (meaning it's not useful from the article level).
PowersT 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to be pointless over categorization. a) Why would anyone be interested that much if a game was available on another platform apart from Windows and b) what about games that start out as Windows only and then get ported to another platform much later. The fact that this category is then broken down further by year strikes me as even stranger
ACarPark (
talk) 19:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
In fairness, it would almost have to be broken down by year, just due to the sheer number of Windows-only games released.
PowersT 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is only few Games which are ported later and exactly then one must remove the category also again! Maybe 1 to 2% the Games, this is no problem! Multiplatform-titles have less the same developing expenditure, how exclusive title. This is no 100% high-class guarantee, however, another way, with maybe other result! --
Fairseeder (
talk) 08:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
You already made your recommendation (however incoherent it might have been). You don't get to "vote" again.
PowersT 14:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per the above discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Health specialties
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.
Kbdank71 20:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rationale: Unlike "medical specialties", I believe the term "health fields" is far more widely used than "health specialties" (this is borne out by G-hits). Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 13:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - the lead article is at
Health specialties but in its entirety it reads "Health specialties include topics such as mental health, public health, and sexual health."
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Right, I completely forgot to mention that so-called "main article" -- which I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn was written by the very same editor who created the category. Basically, I'm concerned that readers may not grasp that "health specialties" refers to major subject areas, not just narrow sub-divisions.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Media
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge into
Category:New media. Duplicate category, creator clearly didn't check the parent cats before creating it. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fiorentina people
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 as nominated.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. –
PeeJay 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the club hasn't always been known as ACF Fiorentina (for most of its life it has been AC Fiorentina) - the current name covers all eras, and is unambiguous.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 09:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Can you provide any past precedent for other categories not using the clubs current name for that reason? –
PeeJay 09:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Category:Dynamo Dresden players, for example - they have been known as SG Dynamo, 1. FC Dynamo, and now SG again. It's impossible to cover all name changes (like the Small Heath/Birmingham City example below), but when a club's "initials" change, and the name without them is unambiguous, then this works as a solution.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not suggesting separate categories, but if we can have a generic name that covers all stages of a club's existence, isn't that more accurate?
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't think we should go with generic names - an encyclopedia should be specific.
пﮟოьεԻ57 10:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
If the generic name unambiguously represents the subject, then it's more encyclopedia, I wouldn't have thought (cf.
WP:COMMONNAME). Being specific is fine, but this category doesn't cover the specifics of Fiorentina post-2002 (and nor should it), so its name can be changed to reflect that.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, but there is no such article as
Fiorentina or
AC Fiorentina - I believe categories should always match their parent article title exactly (e.g. Manchester United F.C. players, not Manchester United players).
пﮟოьεԻ57 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Why, though? That doesn't strike me as a very compelling - nor, dare I say it, encyclopedic - reason.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it does help to identify that the category and the article refer to the same subject. –
PeeJay 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The category header and the category tree should do that. In any case, it's not as if the names are so different that it's unclear.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The subcategories don't even match the parent category, or the other subcategory within the parent category. They should all be the same, regardless of the name we choose, but my opinion is that they should all match the current title of the main article. –
PeeJay 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency - considering I don't think anyone has the entire category tree memorized, it's nice to maintain consistency throughout.
ugen64 (
talk) 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support as per general association football naming consensus. --Jimbo[online] 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Albums in the 33⅓ series
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.
Kbdank71 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is not a defining characteristic of the articles so categorized. It seems like a blatant promotional category for the book. I have no idea why
the previous CFD wasn't closed as delete as there are
precedents and
guidelines that support the deletion of this category.
☑ SamuelWantman 07:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as undefining of the albums in question, as the nom says.
BencherliteTalk 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. To use personification perhaps inappropriately, these albums have no idea these books about them exist.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:UTSPH alumni
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jewish conservatives & Category:Jewish American conservatives
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, no merge. Jc37 brings up a valid point about needing sources, which is difficult if not impossible with categories; a referenced list would work better to satisfy BLP.
Kbdank71 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Republicans have no monopoly in being conservatives.DGG (
talk) 05:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge per DGG. This would be a gross political oversimplification. —
CharlotteWebb 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge per DGG Why only Republicans? Are there no conservative Jewish Democrats? And where does Senator Liebermann fit? And what about Jewish convervatives in other countries, where there are no Republicans?--
Ambrosius007 (
talk) 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: far too simple-minded of a category, the nominator is right to strive for a more objective standard of inclusion, but even that seems to carry a ticturn of folly- why do you even need such a category to begin with- what purpose does it serve the reader?--
Mike Russell 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete (Listify with
verifiablereliable sources, if wanted) - This is merely another "supports/opposes" issue category (see also
WP:OC#OPINION). In this case, it's a subjective grouping of issues. What a "
conservative" is, varies depending on location, and in some cases, per person.
Conservatism: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals." This just cries out for references/citations (see also
WP:BLP), which, of course isn't possible in a category in this case (see also
WP:CLS). -
jc37 08:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Sapnish Fork, Utah
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 correct typo.
Kbdank71 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge, was originally tagged for speedy correction of the spelling mistake ("Sapnish" to "Spanish"); see initial discussion below. Upon reflection, I support a merge to its parent, as the city
Spanish Fork, Utah is relatively small, somewhere less than 25,000. If kept, rename to
Category:People from Spanish Fork, Utah.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I'd favour deletion of this as overcategorisation - but that would need a move from here to the main part of CFD.
Grutness...wha? 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename discussion ends here. Add new discussion immediately below.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Corinthos Family
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.
Kbdank71 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow category for fictional family on
General Hospital. The category is currently populated by a family tree and one article.
AniMate 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
AniMate 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Merge the family tree into the article for the family if it's not there already and delete the category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
There is in fact a precedent for deleting categories for families of soap opera characters, see
2007-01-02 CFD. —
CharlotteWebb 17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
For the sake of clarification; I am the creator of the category.
Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk (SL) was a public transport administrator that was merged to form
Ruter as of 1 Jaunary 2008. The category contains all the companies that were under contract with SL for operating public transport in Akershus. Because of this I feel that the category has served its purpose well, but that
Category:Public transport in Akershus is a better way of organising the articles. Perhaps I should have nominated a merger instead. Sorry for the rather non-clarifying rationale. Arsenikk(talk) 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People from Bolivian cities
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.
Kbdank71 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename - the disambiguation does not seem necessary. The latter two proposed categories are currently disambiguation pages which lead to categories for Bolivian "departments" (districts), but I think that in other similar cases the addition "(city)" has been deemed unnecesary.
EliyakT·
C 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep use of the disambiguate tidy yet reduces ambiguity
Mayumashu (
talk) 01:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep all per roundhouse as disambiguating means of specifying city vs. larger geographical division.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
keep all for the good disambiguation reasons shown. The purpose of naming is to help the WP reader, not push some abstract theory to be in their way.
Hmains (
talk) 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Songs from Paris
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 in view of the creator's comment below.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the lead article
Paris (musical) and reduce ambiguity that these are songs that originated in one or another city named Paris.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rappers with adjective names
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.
Kbdank71 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Alcotts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - although there are at least 2 others,
Louisa May Alcott and her mother
Abby May. I expect Otto can work these into a 'navigational hub' somehow. It is bizarre to have a whole town as a subcat of 'The Alcotts', and the 2 articles 'in' the category are added in an unorthodox fashion.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep but Rename to
Category:Alcott family - I've just completed the work of cleaning up & filling out this category, which now has 7 articles in it (and two parent cats).
Category:Concord, Massachusetts, of course, should be removed -- reversed would be more like it.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
7 family members and a house is more like it, and is probably now a weak keep - nice work, Cgingold (although I had notified the creator already, and you didn't!). If kept, rename per Cgingold.
BencherliteTalk 09:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Er, quite right -- I saw that you had already done so, but forgot to come back and delete that. :)
Cgingold (
talk) 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - the articles are all extensively linked through each other and the category is still small with no apparent further growth potential. Listify the contents at
Alcott family and delete the unnecessary category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Panjsheri People
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.
This qualifies for Speedy Renaming.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Panjsheri Authors
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.
This qualifies for Speedy Renaming.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2001 Windows-only games
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.
Kbdank71 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
was looking for some advice on how to do that in one fell swoop, but thought I would wait until feedback from this one
MrMarmite (
talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to be pointless over categorization. a) Why would anyone be interested that much if a game was available on another platform apart from Windows and b) what about games that start out as Windows only and then get ported to another platform much later. The fact that this category is then broken down further by year strikes me as even stranger. I would get rid of all the platform only categories
ACarPark (
talk) 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose There many thousand Games are already sorted, we simply do not want to see to the consoles multi-platform shit, where the developers often saw only the money and the world market of all systems! --
Fairseeder (
talk) 08:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. Which version of Windows? Do items stay in this category if a later version will run on something other then windows?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose If something changes, the category also changes, this never was a problem. For every Windows version own category would be exaggerated, many windows has a compatible modus, this is not comparably with the porting on all systems. --
Fairseeder (
talk) 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Windows-only games
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.
Kbdank71 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I have no idea what you wrote.
PowersT 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. That a game runs on Windows is defining and notable. That it only runs on Windows is not defining (meaning I don't see the use of browsing the category), and can be deduced from the lack of other-platform categories on the article (meaning it's not useful from the article level).
PowersT 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to be pointless over categorization. a) Why would anyone be interested that much if a game was available on another platform apart from Windows and b) what about games that start out as Windows only and then get ported to another platform much later. The fact that this category is then broken down further by year strikes me as even stranger
ACarPark (
talk) 19:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
In fairness, it would almost have to be broken down by year, just due to the sheer number of Windows-only games released.
PowersT 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is only few Games which are ported later and exactly then one must remove the category also again! Maybe 1 to 2% the Games, this is no problem! Multiplatform-titles have less the same developing expenditure, how exclusive title. This is no 100% high-class guarantee, however, another way, with maybe other result! --
Fairseeder (
talk) 08:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
You already made your recommendation (however incoherent it might have been). You don't get to "vote" again.
PowersT 14:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per the above discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Health specialties
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.
Kbdank71 20:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rationale: Unlike "medical specialties", I believe the term "health fields" is far more widely used than "health specialties" (this is borne out by G-hits). Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 13:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - the lead article is at
Health specialties but in its entirety it reads "Health specialties include topics such as mental health, public health, and sexual health."
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Right, I completely forgot to mention that so-called "main article" -- which I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn was written by the very same editor who created the category. Basically, I'm concerned that readers may not grasp that "health specialties" refers to major subject areas, not just narrow sub-divisions.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Media
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge into
Category:New media. Duplicate category, creator clearly didn't check the parent cats before creating it. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fiorentina people
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 as nominated.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. –
PeeJay 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the club hasn't always been known as ACF Fiorentina (for most of its life it has been AC Fiorentina) - the current name covers all eras, and is unambiguous.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 09:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Can you provide any past precedent for other categories not using the clubs current name for that reason? –
PeeJay 09:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Category:Dynamo Dresden players, for example - they have been known as SG Dynamo, 1. FC Dynamo, and now SG again. It's impossible to cover all name changes (like the Small Heath/Birmingham City example below), but when a club's "initials" change, and the name without them is unambiguous, then this works as a solution.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not suggesting separate categories, but if we can have a generic name that covers all stages of a club's existence, isn't that more accurate?
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't think we should go with generic names - an encyclopedia should be specific.
пﮟოьεԻ57 10:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
If the generic name unambiguously represents the subject, then it's more encyclopedia, I wouldn't have thought (cf.
WP:COMMONNAME). Being specific is fine, but this category doesn't cover the specifics of Fiorentina post-2002 (and nor should it), so its name can be changed to reflect that.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, but there is no such article as
Fiorentina or
AC Fiorentina - I believe categories should always match their parent article title exactly (e.g. Manchester United F.C. players, not Manchester United players).
пﮟოьεԻ57 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Why, though? That doesn't strike me as a very compelling - nor, dare I say it, encyclopedic - reason.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 10:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it does help to identify that the category and the article refer to the same subject. –
PeeJay 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The category header and the category tree should do that. In any case, it's not as if the names are so different that it's unclear.
ArtVandelay13 (
talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The subcategories don't even match the parent category, or the other subcategory within the parent category. They should all be the same, regardless of the name we choose, but my opinion is that they should all match the current title of the main article. –
PeeJay 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency - considering I don't think anyone has the entire category tree memorized, it's nice to maintain consistency throughout.
ugen64 (
talk) 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support as per general association football naming consensus. --Jimbo[online] 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Albums in the 33⅓ series
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.
Kbdank71 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is not a defining characteristic of the articles so categorized. It seems like a blatant promotional category for the book. I have no idea why
the previous CFD wasn't closed as delete as there are
precedents and
guidelines that support the deletion of this category.
☑ SamuelWantman 07:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as undefining of the albums in question, as the nom says.
BencherliteTalk 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. To use personification perhaps inappropriately, these albums have no idea these books about them exist.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:UTSPH alumni
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jewish conservatives & Category:Jewish American conservatives
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, no merge. Jc37 brings up a valid point about needing sources, which is difficult if not impossible with categories; a referenced list would work better to satisfy BLP.
Kbdank71 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Republicans have no monopoly in being conservatives.DGG (
talk) 05:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge per DGG. This would be a gross political oversimplification. —
CharlotteWebb 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge per DGG Why only Republicans? Are there no conservative Jewish Democrats? And where does Senator Liebermann fit? And what about Jewish convervatives in other countries, where there are no Republicans?--
Ambrosius007 (
talk) 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: far too simple-minded of a category, the nominator is right to strive for a more objective standard of inclusion, but even that seems to carry a ticturn of folly- why do you even need such a category to begin with- what purpose does it serve the reader?--
Mike Russell 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete (Listify with
verifiablereliable sources, if wanted) - This is merely another "supports/opposes" issue category (see also
WP:OC#OPINION). In this case, it's a subjective grouping of issues. What a "
conservative" is, varies depending on location, and in some cases, per person.
Conservatism: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals." This just cries out for references/citations (see also
WP:BLP), which, of course isn't possible in a category in this case (see also
WP:CLS). -
jc37 08:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Sapnish Fork, Utah
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 correct typo.
Kbdank71 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge, was originally tagged for speedy correction of the spelling mistake ("Sapnish" to "Spanish"); see initial discussion below. Upon reflection, I support a merge to its parent, as the city
Spanish Fork, Utah is relatively small, somewhere less than 25,000. If kept, rename to
Category:People from Spanish Fork, Utah.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I'd favour deletion of this as overcategorisation - but that would need a move from here to the main part of CFD.
Grutness...wha? 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename discussion ends here. Add new discussion immediately below.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Corinthos Family
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.
Kbdank71 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow category for fictional family on
General Hospital. The category is currently populated by a family tree and one article.
AniMate 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
AniMate 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Merge the family tree into the article for the family if it's not there already and delete the category.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
There is in fact a precedent for deleting categories for families of soap opera characters, see
2007-01-02 CFD. —
CharlotteWebb 17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.