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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:High school fight songs to Category:Fight songs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-item category, likelihood of expansion is low, no need to split off the one article from the parent. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Postdlf ( talk) 14:19, 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.

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 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:NHL fight songs to Category:National Hockey League fight songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Cgingold ( talk) 03:40, 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.

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 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:NFL fight songs to Category:National Football League fight songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Cgingold ( talk) 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question: I notice that you left out ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:NCAA fight songs -- shouldn't that also be renamed? I would suggest ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:College football fight songs. Cgingold ( talk) 03:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• I wasn't sure about that cat. There is no Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association but there are a lot of cats that use the NCAA abbreviation. Otto4711 ( talk) 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• No reason to not nominate the NCAA cats to be expanded to National Collegiate Athletic Association. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• You can but I'm not up to making the nomination. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:41, 14 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:MLB fight songs to Category:Major League Baseball fight songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Cgingold ( talk) 03:40, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Major League Baseball music to Category:Major League Baseball media

Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is not needed to hold the single subcat; unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:12, 7 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Rugby songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overly broad inclusion criterion. There literally is no known song that couldn't be sung after a rugby match, therefore every song article is eligible for inclusion in this category. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Distinctive & defining enough, & no sign of misuse. Johnbod ( talk) 00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• What is the objective definition of "rugby song"? Otto4711 ( talk) 01:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as ambiguous and POV. What exactly is excluded by 'drinking songs sung by rugby players after the game at the after-party'. Maybe we could use the definition as the title then it would not be as ambiguous but would be a sextuple intersection. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and per Vegaswikian. Postdlf ( talk) 03:35, 13 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Memorial music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization based on trivial characteristic. Overly broad ("has been used at") and POV ("suitable for") inclusion criteria. Any piece of music can be used at a funeral or memorial. There was just a story on the radio on Sunday that mentioned that such songs as Highway to Hell and Stairway to Heaven are becoming popular at memorial services. Categorizing compositions on the basis of the purposes to which they can be or have been put will lead to category clutter. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. This is akin to songs/music used in tv commercials. Cgingold ( talk) 03:37, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Folk songs adapted by Joan Baez ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Either delete as a confusing category (what does it mean for a folk song to be "adapted" by someone?) or if Baez is strongly associated with the songs, merge to Category:Joan Baez songs. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Joan Baez songs. Hardly any of Category:XXX songs in Category:Songs by artist is subcategorised (I've looked as far as C - Category:The Beatles songs has 3 subcats, with good reason). -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 13:18, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETE, recreation. See prior CFD. Postdlf ( talk) 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional obese characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category includes fictional characters that were never even mentioned as overweight, let alone obese (see Nelson Muntz); in addition, it seems to be munging the idea of what is overweight v. what is obese -- all in all this is a nonsense category. Quaeler ( talk) 20:35, 7 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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Asteroids, discovered in April 2008 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't see why there needs to be a special category for asteroids discovered in April 2008. Captain panda 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Asteroids. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - if kept it'll need renaming; that comma needs to be removed. Grutness... wha? 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• merge A list/article would be better, listing the ranges of MPC numbers falling in whatever month of whatever year... 70.51.9.151 ( talk) 09:32, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - Feel free to relist. - jc37 09:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:United States ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:American ambassadors to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the common form in Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• But not common in Category:Ambassadors of the United States. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • However this is not to a country so the exception might make sense. Or are we going to see a proposal to rename all of the other categories? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Would switching over to some form of Permanent Representatives, which may be the more accurate title, help any? Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:15, 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.

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 Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union to Category:British ambassadors to the Soviet Union - jc37 09:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union to Category:British ambassadors to the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: For consistency within Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom and to follow customary usage (the building is the British Embassy, the person is the British Ambassador). -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

NB - there are several similar discussions here (1st July). -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 19:57, 7 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Latvia to Category:Russian ambassadors to Latvia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match all siblings in parent Category:Ambassadors of Russia save one, which was created by the same editor who created this one and is nominated for renaming below. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Category:Ambassadors of Russia is a subcat of Category:Russian diplomats so they are presumed Russian already (possibly not always correctly). -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to Latvia, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to Latvia. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• rename per nom. Russia is not an exceptional place requiring exceptional naming. Hmains ( talk) 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom for consistency. If Russavia wants to propose a wholesale rename for all ambassadors categories according to the principles he has set out, he's free to do so, but until then the categories should be named consistently to avoid confusion in the meantime. Anyways, "Russian" can also mean "of Russia as a state", and does not necessarily imply nationality or ethnicity. Thus, a "Russian ambassador" can mean an ambassador of the state of Russia, regardless of that individual's nationality or ethnicity. I don't know which is in more common usage, but I do know that it's not uncommon for me to hear/read in news about the "Russian ambassador" or the "American ambassador", etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 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.

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 15:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Russia to the United Nations to Category:Russian ambassadors to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the naming convention used by all siblings in the parent Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, as above. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to the United Nations. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm confused by the joining comment. We are not joining anything. I guess you are suggesting that if the category has two parents you would think both of those name should be in the category name. That is not the case. What would we do with 4 parents? Length is only a consideration when you have two well suited options. Otherwise it is only a minor consideration if considered at all. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'm also confused by the character counting as the difference is between 'of Russia' and 'Russian', and I make the 2nd one shorter by 2 characters. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• rename per nom. Russia is not an exceptional case that needs exceptional names. Hmains ( talk) 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom for consistency. If Russavia wants to propose a wholesale rename for all ambassadors categories according to the principles he has set out, he's free to do so, but until then the categories should be named consistently to avoid confusion in the meantime. Anyways, "Russian" can also mean "of Russia as a state", and does not necessarily imply nationality or ethnicity. Thus, a "Russian ambassador" can mean an ambassador of the state of Russia, regardless of that individual's nationality or ethnicity. I don't know which is in more common usage, but I do know that it's not uncommon for me to hear/read in news about the "Russian ambassador" or the "American ambassador", etc. to the UN. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose (I am only going to respond to one of these debate - my sentiments apply to others). Previously we had Irish diplomatic missions, Beninese diplomatic missions etc. until somebody convinced us that we should avoid using denonyms. Diplomatic missions of Ireland and Diplomatic missions of Benin works fine. However I do not agree with the suggestion that referring to a state by noun or adjective would somehow be inaccurate. Kransky ( talk) 12:57, 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.

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 15:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Final Fantasy III ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category now has two articles, so it is basically unneeded now Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 06:56, 7 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional agnostics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale Category:Fictional characters by religion was deleted as non-defining. I don't necessarily agree, but if this is what was decided than lack of religious belief would seem to be the same.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 06:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, non-defining trivia. See also precedent for fictional atheists category. Postdlf ( talk) 06:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per precedent.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 11:56, 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.

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 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Jamaican-American actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization, arbitrary intersection. No evidence that acting is significant for Jamaican-Americans or that American actors of Jamaican background are a distinctive, recognized, studied group. As expected, from browsing the handful of entries, the individuals for whom their Jamaican heritage is most prominent are not particularly known for being actors, and those known for being actors are not prominently known for being Jamaican. Anyone can make a sourced list if they like, and I won't complain. Postdlf ( talk) 05:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as overcategorization as well-explained by nom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 11 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahamian-American actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization and arbitrary intersection. No reason to believe that Bahamian-American actors have been recognized as a distinct, definitive subgrouping of either American actors or of Bahamian-Americans. Only one entry and not likely to expand; that one article is already in all the logical categories so there is no need for upmerge. Postdlf ( talk) 04:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as overcategorization as well explained by nom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 11 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete/Listify - Ok, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to restore the list which was deleted by the AfD discussion, as there seems to be consensus in this discussion that this should be a list rather than a category. I'm also going to leave a note with the AfD closer. Note that this closure does not prevent a nomination at WP:DRV, and those concerned are welcome to, if they wish. (Though I'd appreciate notification if they do : ) - jc37 09:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Croatian-Australian Socceroos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not notable nor needed nor relevant. We don't need to subdivide national football teams into ethnic subgroupings. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom (and upmerge as needed). Cgingold ( talk) 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I created the category. Previously there was a page title 'list of Croatian-Australian Socceroos', which was deleted. At the time through a similar discussion the consensus was that such a thing would be better suited as a Caetgory. Yet now thats not fine either? MelbCro ( talk) 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Arrghh! That's appalling. Could you give us a link to that discussion? I can only say that the folks who took part in that AFD are utterly clueless as to what qualifies as a valid category. Good grief. Cgingold ( talk) 09:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Remark – it's at this afd. Perhaps a template? Seriously, I can't see what is wrong with a sourced list, but for a category one would need a potential article on the distinctive contribution of Croatian-Australians to the Socceroos, otherwise it's a trivial intersection. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 10:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Question, would anyone have an issue with me notifying all of the !voters in the above AfD discussion to this discussion? Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC). reply

• As there has been no objection, I have begun notifying people. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC). reply

• Restore list and delete category. This sort of thing happens much to much. We need to have a serious discussion with the AFD participants about what makes a good category! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yup, it's an ongoing problem -- not really sure what can be done, though, short of adding a stern admonition somewhere in the AFD guidelines. Cgingold ( talk) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, I realise this will most likely be unpopular, but I don't really see what's wrong with this category. The criteria for inclusion are pretty well defined, and "not needed or relevant" is a pretty subjective judgement to make. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 04:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC). reply

• What you need to understand is that we don't even have concensus on categories for Ethnicity by Occupation -- some are kept, some get deleted. In this case, we're not just talking about ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Croatian-Australian footballers, we're talking about another whole step beyond that. As far as I'm aware, this category is quite unique in that respect -- and there is virtually no support for categorizing at that level of detail. That's why I said "the folks who took part in that AFD are utterly clueless as to what qualifies as a valid category." Given that the AFD decision was based in large part on the seriously erroneous assumption that the list made better sense as a Category, I would suggest taking it to WP:DRV and getting the decision reversed. Cgingold ( talk) 08:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• There are Category:English-born footballers who played for Australia and various similar ones in the succinctly named Category:English-born footballers who played for other national teams. Not sure if any of these imaginative creations have been tested at cfds. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• As per the comment above me (and risking WP:OTHERSTUFF here), I don't really see why this is so terrible, or what guidelines it breaches. I'm keeping an open mind on this one though and could perhaps be persuaded to change my view. I'd also have no objection to a rename to bring it into line with other similar categories. Full disclosure: I voted "categorise" in the original AfD discussion. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC). reply

• Fair question. The guideline breached is Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This category is essentially a triple intersection. It is Croatian X Austrailian X Socceroos. Imagine that an article is in 8 primary categories and then calculate how many categories there would be if we had all the possible triple intersections. The other guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization which at the very top of the page in the nutshell box says that categories should be for "defining" characteristics. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, regardless of whether a list is recreated, but I have no objection to listifying. Postdlf ( talk) 16:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Listify, this info is much more suited to a list, I would suggest finding a number of good sources for each of these players, info on years, caps(goals) etc then recreating the list in userspace. Once this is done, take it to Deletion review. E P 21:36, 13 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.

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. Postdlf ( talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Railway stations in Idado to Category:Railway stations in Idaho

Nominator's rationale: Rename, as the current name is a typo. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename as obvious typo. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename-per being a typo.-- SRX^{-- Latino} Heat 02:34, 7 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Nazi glossary ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nazi terminology. The category is misnamed -- a category cannot be a glossary. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nazi terminology will be consistent with other sub-cats of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Terminology. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 00:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom to match other similar categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 11:57, 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.

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 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:We didn't start the fire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: That's just silly. Beeblbrox ( talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, or start weeding - How is it silly? We have categories for American vegetarians, People from Kansas City, the year 1055, Anime and manga characters who can fly... I can go on and on and on and on. How is this any different?-- *Kat* ( talk) 00:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Extinguish - being mentioned in a pop song is not in the slightest a defining characteristic of those who are mentioned. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• It may not define them but it does define (for lack of a better word) demonstrate their level of influence.-- *Kat* ( talk) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The cultural references within the song are listed at the song's article. That a songwriter decades after the fact happened to mention some historical person or event doesn't mean that it should serve as the basis for a category. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Do as you will. I realize now that this category is in violation of the rules as they now stand. I had not realized that those rules had become so detailed. My motivation behind creating this category was to link these articles together in a new and novel way. Although I admit the category might not have been particularly useful and that it could have been given a different name, I still think that it, and categories like it, have a place on Wikipedia. Perhaps there should be two types of categories. One for regular "categorization" and one for "common factors". Just a thought.-- *Kat* ( talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The latter is called "what links here." Postdlf ( talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete-how does this warrant for a category? People mentioned in a song? Come'on. SRX^{-- Latino} Heat 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment I'm not worried about the rules, to be honest, I have no idea what the "rules" are for categories, but this category serves no purpose. The article on the song itself provides links to every one of the references if anyone is curious, so the category adds nothing but un-needed clutter. Beeblbrox ( talk) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Completely without purpose or value, though I can't say it's the worst category I've ever seen. Postdlf ( talk) 06:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This could be a poster child for "inappropriate categorization". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:46, 7 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.