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 the only category to
Category:Psychology. Empty (and single article) categories are indeed a reason to delete.
Kbdank71 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category currently is empty. There is no definition for it as Psychological conditions is too vague to be meaningful.
Mattisse (
Talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The very first link from google search on term. Psychological condition (psychology) a mental condition in which the qualities of a state are relatively constant even though the state itself may be dynamic. Empty cats are no reason to delete, but it currently has one. Is there a carefully considered rationale for this deletion? cygnis insignis 08:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I do not care whether the category exists or not. It just does not have anything to do with Psychology. But sometimes people need a grab bag catetory to stick things in and it will do for that.
Category:Emotion is one of those grab bag categories also. We in Psychology gave up on getting it deleted because there are too many OR, fringe, or pop psych theories etc. that can be stuck there. As far as it turning up on Google, often I write an article and the very next day it is first on Google. That is just the way Google works. The fact that an empty meaningless Wikipedia category still turns up first on Google has to tell you something!
Mattisse (
Talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)reply
It doesn't tell me anything: I googled the term, not the category. The nominator seems to have a strong opinion on this, but a search contradicts the 'meaningless' claim. The user has not given the any other reason to delete this category; miscategorisation of articles is not one, any category can be misapplied. Depopulating categories prior to these discussions does not assist in determining the value to the encyclopedia, it does give interested contributors an alert to 'Category for Deletion'. If this has been discussed at a wikiproject, or can be shown to contradict a specific policy, the links would be helpful to this discussion. cygnis insignis 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment the category was created to gather a range of articles related to psychology, but not necessary pathological, from memory including a number of paraphilias, and a number then haphazardly categorised.
User:Mattisse has recently emptied the category, I would expect to more clearly defined categories.
Paul foord (
talk) 03:26, 16 March 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:Afrikaans South Africans
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.
Kbdank71 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 'Afrikaans-speaking' is the correct adjective form
Mayumashu (
talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm very dubious about this. By precedent we don't normally categorize by language spoken. It is a sub-cat of the national/ethnic tree, not anything to do with language; plenty of black people speak Afrikaans, but I don't think this category is meant for them. Why on earth does
Casper de Vries not go into the main
Category:Afrikaners? Why don't those "of Huguenot descent", a classic Afrikaner origin. Keep or Down-merge to
Category:Afrikaners, deleting any who really don't belong there.
Johnbod (
talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete bad precedent, to categorize people by languages spoken. How well must it be spoken? Mother tongue? Or is this a race/ethnicity category in disguise, in which is should surely go.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
It's of no use then, if it's just a race/ethnicity cat - after 300 years of mixing even the most emphatic supporters of categorization by race/ethnicity would have a hard time swallowing the relevance of this (but note: mixing with native blood seems to quickly exclude one from this category) WikiApartheid.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:00, 12 March 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:Fictional voodoo practitioners
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 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Found doing February cleanup. Appears to have been left out of a group nomination on Feb 24 that resulted in a Delete of the other fictional religion categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete to be consistent with other fictional religious adherents / practitioners. --
Lquilter (
talk) 14:40, 12 March 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:Fictional Protestants
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 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Appears to have been left out of a group nomination on Feb 24 that resulted in a Delete of the other categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete to be consistent with other fictional religious adherents / practitioners. --
Lquilter (
talk) 14:40, 12 March 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:Films about dinosaurs
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 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found doing February cleanup. Appears to not have been listed.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete does the mere featuring of a dinosaur make the films have much in common? No. Barney and Jurassic Park have little if anything in common. And films about dinosaurs suffers the same ills as all films about categories: how much about the subject must it be and what RS tells us that it's at least that amount.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:53, 12 March 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:Bosnian folk music
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 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Leftover from February. Seems to match a group rename that was completed and this item was not included with the nomination.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:49, 11 March 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:Solomon Islander society
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 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found cleaning up from February. Seems to match a group nomination that was renamed.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:44, 11 March 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:Registered Historic Places in Lexington
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 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There are several
Lexingtons; the category should be specific to allow for future growth.
Appraiser (
talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Far and away the largest, and most notable. Even if every possible Wikipedia article about a Lexington were written, Kentucky's would have 95% of them.--
Bedford 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename Given
Lexington, Massachusetts, size isn't a factor - both Lexingtons are very notable, but for different reasons. Furthermore, policy and guidelines seem to dictate "city, state" for article and category titles.
MSJapan (
talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This is about NRHPs. Lex Mass has only 12 on the National Register; Lex KY has over one hundred. Not allowing just Lexington means there is a reason for people not to bother writing a bunch of Lex KY articles.--
Bedford 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Why would this deter anyone from writing articles?--
Appraiser (
talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Clearly a city only category. The issue of size is a distraction and should not affect the outcome based on previous discussions.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:32, 16 March 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:Law enforcers who committed suicide
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.
Kbdank71 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, specifically a trivia-type category. Someone who is notable for being "X" doesn't really have great article enhancement from also being in a "died by Y"-type category. As per my other nom, I don't see this as a cat that will fill out at all.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The structure is there to break up
Category:Suicides somehow, as it would be colossal otherwise. However, as I've said before, I'm open to another method of subcategorizing these articles.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
It seems less connective to me than by career. Just my opinion, though.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 11:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Please, note that this question was already discussed and the decision already was keep (sadly, the link from discussion page is broken). I can remind that the basic ideas behind this categorization are: 1) subdivision of overpopulated
Category:Suicides, 2) make it useful for end-users (such as psychologists and other possible researchers who research suicide phenomena) to make it easy to find connection between suicide causes and profession. "Law enforcers who committed suicide" is indeed a *good* example of useful category for this purpose: it's well-known that law enforcement is a hard job that makes a huge psychological impact on a person and, given that the law enforcers usually have easy access to weapons, suicide cases among law enforcers are not unusual. However, I agree that other subdivisions are possible and in fact, they exist (we have also
Category:Suicides by method). If anyone cares for
Category:Suicides by country — they're welcome to undertake such project.--
GreyCat (
talk) 08:44, 13 March 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:Law enforcement snipers
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 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, and only one article in the cat, with low probability of additions (as a matter of fact, the only reason the one article is in there is because the sniper was accused of manslaughter at Waco). I think The main snipers category should suffice in conjunction with the law enforcement officers cat.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep,
Category:Snipers already has sub-categorizations for "Criminal snipers" and "Military snipers", and law enforcement really doesn't fit into either category.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete the one guy can be categorized under
Category:Snipers, we don't need a subcat for 1, too OCAT.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete with option to recreate if more articles that would obviously fit are actually written.
Blueboar (
talk) 20:27, 13 March 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:Fictional androids with an emotion chip
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 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
Wikipedia:Overcategorization, this is a non-defining or trivial characteristic, and likely too small with limited potential for growth.
HokieRNB (
talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as a Star Trek category masquerading as a more general category. And "Emotion" is the name of a real chip.
70.55.84.89 (
talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Trivial, not useful for navigation, pure trekkiecruft.
szyslak 06:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I would support it if it had a second article. As it is, there is only one which fits the description.
Dimadick (
talk) 15:38, 13 March 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:Rush
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.
Keep - The general consensus on eponymous musician categories is that they are not needed if the extent of their contents are member, album and song subcats and the band article and discography. Here we have additional subcats for videos and tours along with additional articles. Personally I'm fine with extending the consensus so that neither tour nor video subcats are sufficient to warrant the category, but there do not appear to be appropriate alternate categories for the articles
History of Rush and
Rush equipment so the category needs to be retained to house them. If suitable alternate categories can be located before the close of the CFD, I'm willing to change my opinion.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Otto4711.
RedWolf (
talk) 04:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep to aid navigation between related sub-categories. Possibly rename to
Category:Rush (band) to match parent article. —
CharlotteWebb 17:04, 17 March 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:Signers of the United States Constitution
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose informal English preferable, the current formulation is by far the more used in the US, e.g. "Signers"+"Declaration of Independence" is 488K ghits vs. "Signatories"+"Declaration of Independence" only 86k ghits.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Signers really is the common way this is expressed in the US, in all settings (informal use, media, etc.)
Quale (
talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
oppose Signers has always been used in the US. WP should not be culture tampering. And for the sake of what? Not a credible nomination
Hmains (
talk) 04:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, Although the term "signatories" may be more formal, "Signers" is by far more common. --
TommyBoy (
talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, Per above - should follow more common usage in the United States.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 01:38, 18 March 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:Muscle Shoals Music
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 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad category; seems to be indiscriminate in what it contains -- songs recorded in Muscle Shoals, bands who recorded there, etc. etc. I don't see much of a connection between, say
Bob Seger and Muscle Shoals music, nor between Skynyrd and it, nor between "Touch Me When We're Dancing".
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Author's Comments:Keep During the 1970's Muscle Shoals was considered the "Hit Recording Capital of the World." It is home to Sam Phillips who discovered Elvis, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, and many other greats at his studios in Memphis. It is home to the famous Muscle Shoals Sound and Fame Recording Studios, both playing a significant role in the evolution of the sound of the 70's that intertwined both soul and rock to form a unique sound. As such Muscle Shoals music is considered its own genre and carries much significance in the evolution of modern rock music. Many of the artists who had their beginnings there would strongly argue it carries very high significance and remains significant in the evolution of American music. Just the list of artists who have recorded there shows the importance of this central figure in the music world. For more information on Skynyrd check "Sweet Home Alabama" and the reference to the Muscle Shoals Swampers. The Swampers were the back-up musicians that included David Hood, some of the best muscians in the world. It is one reason artists chose Muscle Shoals. The common root is the studios, the studio operators, the back-up musciains, and the discoveries that make Muscle Shoals Music unique. Mark @ DailyNetworkstalk 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
That would be a great idea. I will try to work on that some this weekend or maybe after it is decided to keep or delete. It would certainly help. Thanks!!! Mark @ DailyNetworkstalk 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's original comments. The fact that songs were recorded in a particular locale or that musicians recorded in a particular place in non-defining. Akin to something like
Category:Los Angeles Music for songs recorded or bands who laid down tracks in LA or
Category:Brussels Music for bands who happened to record in Belgium.
Otto4711 (
talk) 00:56, 15 March 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:Artistic portrayals of Jesus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:reverse merge.
the wub"?!" 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge, Duplicate. This category is larger, but
category:Depictions of Jesus matches the article
Depiction of Jesus more closely, and takes the same form as the category for the Virgin Mary. It is also shorter. But whatever name is preferred, there need only be one category.
Luwilt (
talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree only one cat is needed. I personally think "Artistic portrayals of Jesus" is clearer, and the main article is about "the depiction" as a general subject, whereas the category is supposed to cover individual depictions, so I'm not sure consistency is absolutely necessary. There is a case for renaming the article & the Jesus category to "Jesus in art" as being clearer, and as the category in fact contain individual works, types of works & so on. The Mary category is actually rather different, with many more cult types & so on, and has no main article as such.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge, the first category is by far the older (the second is a week old), and "depictions of Jesus" connotes things like the Turin Shroud, Crucifixes, and such, where "Artistic" is in the eye of the beholder - is an actor's potrayal of Jesus in a film appropriate for the category? If the film has Jesus show up in a (ahem) less than pious depiction, still? Any way, given the choice between the two and not being able to come up with anything more clever, I prefer the former to the latter.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, just in case anyone notices that the only article in "Depictions" was written & added by me, I did it by mistake, & didn't create the cat.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:38, 12 March 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.
2006/07 football league seasons
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 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories each only contain one article, and show no signs of having any more added to them in the foreseeable future. –
PeeJay 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. –
PeeJay 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete without prejudice to recreation if there become a slew of new articles appropriately so categorized.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, articles should be categorized by La Liga seasons etc.
Punkmorten (
talk) 10:40, 15 March 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:La Liga statistics
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 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The category contains individual articles about each season of
La Liga and only one article that could be considered statistical. This move would bring this category in line with
Category:Segunda División seasons. –
PeeJay 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. –
PeeJay 15:50, 11 March 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:Secretaries of Justice
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 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a Philippines category, but many countries have an office with a similar name, so it is wide open to confusion and inadvertent misuse.
Luwilt (
talk) 15:15, 11 March 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:Texas-San Antonio Roadrunners men's basketball coaches
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 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename. They're better known by the acronym.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:27, 12 March 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:Social history of Nepal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:listify per Johnbod.
the wub"?!" 11:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC). Actually it turns out this is already better covered in
Demographics of Nepal, so there is no need for another list.
the wub"?!" 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. While listification per Johnbod would normally make sense, without sourcing we have no way of knowing whether these these castes exist, are grouped in this way, or whether this is (hopefully isn't) an attack page. I don't know enough on this subject to know that it has merit, and unless someone who does can find sourcing, deletion is the best course.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Well a large number of them are blue links, though many are not; I can confirm many are correct. I see no reason why we should not
WP:AGF. Since the list is really just a collection of links, with no statements made, I don't think lack of sourcing is a reason to just remove the material here.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:43, 12 March 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:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to
Category:Alleged police brutality in the United States. This may not be the best name to use, but there does not appear to be a better one based upon the discussion. There is definite consensus that this category should not stay as is. Based upon the argument that "more Wikipedia articles about alleged brutality by the NYPD have been written than articles about alleged brutality by any other police force", it seems to be a better idea to go with a rename instead of merge, at least for the now.
Kbdank71 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to carry the misleading implication that the
New York City Police Department has a much more serious brutality problem than other departments, so serious it needs its own category. Regardless, I don't see a need to subcategorize police brutality-related articles by department.
Category:Alleged police brutality is not especially large, and I don't see how such a scheme helps with navigation
szyslak 10:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, that is faulty logic. All this tells us is that more Wikipedia articles about alleged brutality by the NYPD have been written than articles about alleged brutality by any other police force. This could be the result of one editor who happens to like writing articles about NY.
Oppose Merge - This is simply an ordinary and perfectly valid sub-cat which improves the orderly navigation of the parent cat (which would have nearly 50 articles if merged). I certainly agree that there are many other police depts. with records of brutality, most of which aren't as well documented in Wiki articles as they ought to be.
Cgingold (
talk) 13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge - article count doesn't factor in to the size of a category (we have plenty at 200+), and 17 articles (not all of which are cases) covering 124 years doesn't seem to me to indicate a problem that needs its own cat. We should be dealing in fact without making judgments implied in category titles.
MSJapan (
talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge, but perhaps rename so that it's simply "United States" not "New York City" specifically, and move other articles into the new geographic subcat as well.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This suggestion strikes me as a very good idea.
Cgingold (
talk) 14:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Do something. The category seems to be overly broad. Anyone who has an article and has alleged brutality by this department, or by anyone if merged, seems to be includeable. I think a better tack might be to group these by people with allegations, notable incidents and maybe investigations of allegations.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete both; allegations categories are generall crap, who makes the allegation, does it need to be in good faith, and where does
Tawana Brawley go?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per Speaker for the Dead [User:Sherurcij] suggestion.
Dimadick (
talk) 15:41, 13 March 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 Estland
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:People from Estonia. This particular category ought to be moved for reasons of
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), "Estland" is the German/Danish term for "Estonia". Prior to 1920, "Esthonia" was the predominant English term for that region, however it is now an English archaism like Servia is archaic English for Serbia.
Martintg (
talk) 04:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. But this cat page lists people of the Imperial Russian
Governorate of Estonia and not the modern state. The suggested renaming would be too confusing.
Mayumashu (
talk) 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Pre-WW1 english language references, including the 1911 edition of Britanica
[1], refer to the Imperial Russian
Governorate of Estonia in the archaic form "Esthonia". In 1917 the
Russian Provisional Government expanded the
Governorate of Estonia (today northern Estonia) to absorb the northern part of
Governorate of Livonia, hence that was how the whole territory of modern Estonia got its name. A google book search reveals:
estonia "Russian empire" 696 hits Google books
[2]
estland "Russian empire" 187 hits Google books
[3]
livonia "Russian empire" 685 hits Google books
[4]
livland "Russian empire" 192 hits Google books
[5]
courland "Russian empire" 655 hits Google books
[6]
kurland "Russian empire" 287 hits Google books
[7]
deutschland "Russian empire" 494 hits Google books
[9]
In google scholar:
"Russian empire" + estland 337 hits in Google scholar
[10]
"Russian empire" + estonia 3580 hits in Google scholar
[11]
Clearly estonia/livonia/courland/germany is more common in english usage than the germanic estland/livland/kurland/deutschland, if you dig further you will find the german form is usually associated with some German language article or book. We don't have a category
Category:People from Deutschland in english wikipedia to avoid confusion with people born in the modern German state.
Martintg (
talk) 05:23, 11 March 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:Buildings and structures in Stirling
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.
the wub"?!" 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment (nominator): Creator has emptied the old category and replaced it with a new one of the proposed name. In light of this, I suppose this nomination could be closed.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 13:07, 13 March 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:Expatriate football players to Category:Expatriate footballers
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 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: majority of category pages use the more concise term "footballer" in their naming
Mayumashu (
talk) 02:04, 11 March 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 the only category to
Category:Psychology. Empty (and single article) categories are indeed a reason to delete.
Kbdank71 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category currently is empty. There is no definition for it as Psychological conditions is too vague to be meaningful.
Mattisse (
Talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The very first link from google search on term. Psychological condition (psychology) a mental condition in which the qualities of a state are relatively constant even though the state itself may be dynamic. Empty cats are no reason to delete, but it currently has one. Is there a carefully considered rationale for this deletion? cygnis insignis 08:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I do not care whether the category exists or not. It just does not have anything to do with Psychology. But sometimes people need a grab bag catetory to stick things in and it will do for that.
Category:Emotion is one of those grab bag categories also. We in Psychology gave up on getting it deleted because there are too many OR, fringe, or pop psych theories etc. that can be stuck there. As far as it turning up on Google, often I write an article and the very next day it is first on Google. That is just the way Google works. The fact that an empty meaningless Wikipedia category still turns up first on Google has to tell you something!
Mattisse (
Talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)reply
It doesn't tell me anything: I googled the term, not the category. The nominator seems to have a strong opinion on this, but a search contradicts the 'meaningless' claim. The user has not given the any other reason to delete this category; miscategorisation of articles is not one, any category can be misapplied. Depopulating categories prior to these discussions does not assist in determining the value to the encyclopedia, it does give interested contributors an alert to 'Category for Deletion'. If this has been discussed at a wikiproject, or can be shown to contradict a specific policy, the links would be helpful to this discussion. cygnis insignis 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment the category was created to gather a range of articles related to psychology, but not necessary pathological, from memory including a number of paraphilias, and a number then haphazardly categorised.
User:Mattisse has recently emptied the category, I would expect to more clearly defined categories.
Paul foord (
talk) 03:26, 16 March 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:Afrikaans South Africans
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.
Kbdank71 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 'Afrikaans-speaking' is the correct adjective form
Mayumashu (
talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm very dubious about this. By precedent we don't normally categorize by language spoken. It is a sub-cat of the national/ethnic tree, not anything to do with language; plenty of black people speak Afrikaans, but I don't think this category is meant for them. Why on earth does
Casper de Vries not go into the main
Category:Afrikaners? Why don't those "of Huguenot descent", a classic Afrikaner origin. Keep or Down-merge to
Category:Afrikaners, deleting any who really don't belong there.
Johnbod (
talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete bad precedent, to categorize people by languages spoken. How well must it be spoken? Mother tongue? Or is this a race/ethnicity category in disguise, in which is should surely go.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
It's of no use then, if it's just a race/ethnicity cat - after 300 years of mixing even the most emphatic supporters of categorization by race/ethnicity would have a hard time swallowing the relevance of this (but note: mixing with native blood seems to quickly exclude one from this category) WikiApartheid.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:00, 12 March 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:Fictional voodoo practitioners
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 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Found doing February cleanup. Appears to have been left out of a group nomination on Feb 24 that resulted in a Delete of the other fictional religion categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete to be consistent with other fictional religious adherents / practitioners. --
Lquilter (
talk) 14:40, 12 March 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:Fictional Protestants
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 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Appears to have been left out of a group nomination on Feb 24 that resulted in a Delete of the other categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete to be consistent with other fictional religious adherents / practitioners. --
Lquilter (
talk) 14:40, 12 March 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:Films about dinosaurs
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 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found doing February cleanup. Appears to not have been listed.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete does the mere featuring of a dinosaur make the films have much in common? No. Barney and Jurassic Park have little if anything in common. And films about dinosaurs suffers the same ills as all films about categories: how much about the subject must it be and what RS tells us that it's at least that amount.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:53, 12 March 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:Bosnian folk music
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 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Leftover from February. Seems to match a group rename that was completed and this item was not included with the nomination.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:49, 11 March 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:Solomon Islander society
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 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found cleaning up from February. Seems to match a group nomination that was renamed.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:44, 11 March 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:Registered Historic Places in Lexington
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 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There are several
Lexingtons; the category should be specific to allow for future growth.
Appraiser (
talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Far and away the largest, and most notable. Even if every possible Wikipedia article about a Lexington were written, Kentucky's would have 95% of them.--
Bedford 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename Given
Lexington, Massachusetts, size isn't a factor - both Lexingtons are very notable, but for different reasons. Furthermore, policy and guidelines seem to dictate "city, state" for article and category titles.
MSJapan (
talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This is about NRHPs. Lex Mass has only 12 on the National Register; Lex KY has over one hundred. Not allowing just Lexington means there is a reason for people not to bother writing a bunch of Lex KY articles.--
Bedford 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Why would this deter anyone from writing articles?--
Appraiser (
talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Clearly a city only category. The issue of size is a distraction and should not affect the outcome based on previous discussions.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 01:32, 16 March 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:Law enforcers who committed suicide
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.
Kbdank71 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, specifically a trivia-type category. Someone who is notable for being "X" doesn't really have great article enhancement from also being in a "died by Y"-type category. As per my other nom, I don't see this as a cat that will fill out at all.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The structure is there to break up
Category:Suicides somehow, as it would be colossal otherwise. However, as I've said before, I'm open to another method of subcategorizing these articles.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
It seems less connective to me than by career. Just my opinion, though.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 11:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Please, note that this question was already discussed and the decision already was keep (sadly, the link from discussion page is broken). I can remind that the basic ideas behind this categorization are: 1) subdivision of overpopulated
Category:Suicides, 2) make it useful for end-users (such as psychologists and other possible researchers who research suicide phenomena) to make it easy to find connection between suicide causes and profession. "Law enforcers who committed suicide" is indeed a *good* example of useful category for this purpose: it's well-known that law enforcement is a hard job that makes a huge psychological impact on a person and, given that the law enforcers usually have easy access to weapons, suicide cases among law enforcers are not unusual. However, I agree that other subdivisions are possible and in fact, they exist (we have also
Category:Suicides by method). If anyone cares for
Category:Suicides by country — they're welcome to undertake such project.--
GreyCat (
talk) 08:44, 13 March 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:Law enforcement snipers
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 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, and only one article in the cat, with low probability of additions (as a matter of fact, the only reason the one article is in there is because the sniper was accused of manslaughter at Waco). I think The main snipers category should suffice in conjunction with the law enforcement officers cat.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep,
Category:Snipers already has sub-categorizations for "Criminal snipers" and "Military snipers", and law enforcement really doesn't fit into either category.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete the one guy can be categorized under
Category:Snipers, we don't need a subcat for 1, too OCAT.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete with option to recreate if more articles that would obviously fit are actually written.
Blueboar (
talk) 20:27, 13 March 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:Fictional androids with an emotion chip
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 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
Wikipedia:Overcategorization, this is a non-defining or trivial characteristic, and likely too small with limited potential for growth.
HokieRNB (
talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as a Star Trek category masquerading as a more general category. And "Emotion" is the name of a real chip.
70.55.84.89 (
talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Trivial, not useful for navigation, pure trekkiecruft.
szyslak 06:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I would support it if it had a second article. As it is, there is only one which fits the description.
Dimadick (
talk) 15:38, 13 March 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:Rush
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.
Keep - The general consensus on eponymous musician categories is that they are not needed if the extent of their contents are member, album and song subcats and the band article and discography. Here we have additional subcats for videos and tours along with additional articles. Personally I'm fine with extending the consensus so that neither tour nor video subcats are sufficient to warrant the category, but there do not appear to be appropriate alternate categories for the articles
History of Rush and
Rush equipment so the category needs to be retained to house them. If suitable alternate categories can be located before the close of the CFD, I'm willing to change my opinion.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Otto4711.
RedWolf (
talk) 04:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep to aid navigation between related sub-categories. Possibly rename to
Category:Rush (band) to match parent article. —
CharlotteWebb 17:04, 17 March 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:Signers of the United States Constitution
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose informal English preferable, the current formulation is by far the more used in the US, e.g. "Signers"+"Declaration of Independence" is 488K ghits vs. "Signatories"+"Declaration of Independence" only 86k ghits.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Signers really is the common way this is expressed in the US, in all settings (informal use, media, etc.)
Quale (
talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
oppose Signers has always been used in the US. WP should not be culture tampering. And for the sake of what? Not a credible nomination
Hmains (
talk) 04:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, Although the term "signatories" may be more formal, "Signers" is by far more common. --
TommyBoy (
talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, Per above - should follow more common usage in the United States.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 01:38, 18 March 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:Muscle Shoals Music
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 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad category; seems to be indiscriminate in what it contains -- songs recorded in Muscle Shoals, bands who recorded there, etc. etc. I don't see much of a connection between, say
Bob Seger and Muscle Shoals music, nor between Skynyrd and it, nor between "Touch Me When We're Dancing".
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Author's Comments:Keep During the 1970's Muscle Shoals was considered the "Hit Recording Capital of the World." It is home to Sam Phillips who discovered Elvis, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, and many other greats at his studios in Memphis. It is home to the famous Muscle Shoals Sound and Fame Recording Studios, both playing a significant role in the evolution of the sound of the 70's that intertwined both soul and rock to form a unique sound. As such Muscle Shoals music is considered its own genre and carries much significance in the evolution of modern rock music. Many of the artists who had their beginnings there would strongly argue it carries very high significance and remains significant in the evolution of American music. Just the list of artists who have recorded there shows the importance of this central figure in the music world. For more information on Skynyrd check "Sweet Home Alabama" and the reference to the Muscle Shoals Swampers. The Swampers were the back-up musicians that included David Hood, some of the best muscians in the world. It is one reason artists chose Muscle Shoals. The common root is the studios, the studio operators, the back-up musciains, and the discoveries that make Muscle Shoals Music unique. Mark @ DailyNetworkstalk 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)reply
That would be a great idea. I will try to work on that some this weekend or maybe after it is decided to keep or delete. It would certainly help. Thanks!!! Mark @ DailyNetworkstalk 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's original comments. The fact that songs were recorded in a particular locale or that musicians recorded in a particular place in non-defining. Akin to something like
Category:Los Angeles Music for songs recorded or bands who laid down tracks in LA or
Category:Brussels Music for bands who happened to record in Belgium.
Otto4711 (
talk) 00:56, 15 March 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:Artistic portrayals of Jesus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:reverse merge.
the wub"?!" 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge, Duplicate. This category is larger, but
category:Depictions of Jesus matches the article
Depiction of Jesus more closely, and takes the same form as the category for the Virgin Mary. It is also shorter. But whatever name is preferred, there need only be one category.
Luwilt (
talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree only one cat is needed. I personally think "Artistic portrayals of Jesus" is clearer, and the main article is about "the depiction" as a general subject, whereas the category is supposed to cover individual depictions, so I'm not sure consistency is absolutely necessary. There is a case for renaming the article & the Jesus category to "Jesus in art" as being clearer, and as the category in fact contain individual works, types of works & so on. The Mary category is actually rather different, with many more cult types & so on, and has no main article as such.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge, the first category is by far the older (the second is a week old), and "depictions of Jesus" connotes things like the Turin Shroud, Crucifixes, and such, where "Artistic" is in the eye of the beholder - is an actor's potrayal of Jesus in a film appropriate for the category? If the film has Jesus show up in a (ahem) less than pious depiction, still? Any way, given the choice between the two and not being able to come up with anything more clever, I prefer the former to the latter.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, just in case anyone notices that the only article in "Depictions" was written & added by me, I did it by mistake, & didn't create the cat.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:38, 12 March 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.
2006/07 football league seasons
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 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories each only contain one article, and show no signs of having any more added to them in the foreseeable future. –
PeeJay 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. –
PeeJay 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete without prejudice to recreation if there become a slew of new articles appropriately so categorized.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, articles should be categorized by La Liga seasons etc.
Punkmorten (
talk) 10:40, 15 March 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:La Liga statistics
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 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The category contains individual articles about each season of
La Liga and only one article that could be considered statistical. This move would bring this category in line with
Category:Segunda División seasons. –
PeeJay 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. –
PeeJay 15:50, 11 March 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:Secretaries of Justice
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 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a Philippines category, but many countries have an office with a similar name, so it is wide open to confusion and inadvertent misuse.
Luwilt (
talk) 15:15, 11 March 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:Texas-San Antonio Roadrunners men's basketball coaches
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 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename. They're better known by the acronym.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:27, 12 March 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:Social history of Nepal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:listify per Johnbod.
the wub"?!" 11:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC). Actually it turns out this is already better covered in
Demographics of Nepal, so there is no need for another list.
the wub"?!" 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. While listification per Johnbod would normally make sense, without sourcing we have no way of knowing whether these these castes exist, are grouped in this way, or whether this is (hopefully isn't) an attack page. I don't know enough on this subject to know that it has merit, and unless someone who does can find sourcing, deletion is the best course.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Well a large number of them are blue links, though many are not; I can confirm many are correct. I see no reason why we should not
WP:AGF. Since the list is really just a collection of links, with no statements made, I don't think lack of sourcing is a reason to just remove the material here.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:43, 12 March 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:Alleged brutality by the New York City Police Department
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to
Category:Alleged police brutality in the United States. This may not be the best name to use, but there does not appear to be a better one based upon the discussion. There is definite consensus that this category should not stay as is. Based upon the argument that "more Wikipedia articles about alleged brutality by the NYPD have been written than articles about alleged brutality by any other police force", it seems to be a better idea to go with a rename instead of merge, at least for the now.
Kbdank71 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to carry the misleading implication that the
New York City Police Department has a much more serious brutality problem than other departments, so serious it needs its own category. Regardless, I don't see a need to subcategorize police brutality-related articles by department.
Category:Alleged police brutality is not especially large, and I don't see how such a scheme helps with navigation
szyslak 10:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, that is faulty logic. All this tells us is that more Wikipedia articles about alleged brutality by the NYPD have been written than articles about alleged brutality by any other police force. This could be the result of one editor who happens to like writing articles about NY.
Oppose Merge - This is simply an ordinary and perfectly valid sub-cat which improves the orderly navigation of the parent cat (which would have nearly 50 articles if merged). I certainly agree that there are many other police depts. with records of brutality, most of which aren't as well documented in Wiki articles as they ought to be.
Cgingold (
talk) 13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge - article count doesn't factor in to the size of a category (we have plenty at 200+), and 17 articles (not all of which are cases) covering 124 years doesn't seem to me to indicate a problem that needs its own cat. We should be dealing in fact without making judgments implied in category titles.
MSJapan (
talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge, but perhaps rename so that it's simply "United States" not "New York City" specifically, and move other articles into the new geographic subcat as well.
Sherurcij(
Speaker for the Dead) 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This suggestion strikes me as a very good idea.
Cgingold (
talk) 14:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Do something. The category seems to be overly broad. Anyone who has an article and has alleged brutality by this department, or by anyone if merged, seems to be includeable. I think a better tack might be to group these by people with allegations, notable incidents and maybe investigations of allegations.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete both; allegations categories are generall crap, who makes the allegation, does it need to be in good faith, and where does
Tawana Brawley go?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename per Speaker for the Dead [User:Sherurcij] suggestion.
Dimadick (
talk) 15:41, 13 March 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 Estland
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:People from Estonia. This particular category ought to be moved for reasons of
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), "Estland" is the German/Danish term for "Estonia". Prior to 1920, "Esthonia" was the predominant English term for that region, however it is now an English archaism like Servia is archaic English for Serbia.
Martintg (
talk) 04:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. But this cat page lists people of the Imperial Russian
Governorate of Estonia and not the modern state. The suggested renaming would be too confusing.
Mayumashu (
talk) 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Pre-WW1 english language references, including the 1911 edition of Britanica
[1], refer to the Imperial Russian
Governorate of Estonia in the archaic form "Esthonia". In 1917 the
Russian Provisional Government expanded the
Governorate of Estonia (today northern Estonia) to absorb the northern part of
Governorate of Livonia, hence that was how the whole territory of modern Estonia got its name. A google book search reveals:
estonia "Russian empire" 696 hits Google books
[2]
estland "Russian empire" 187 hits Google books
[3]
livonia "Russian empire" 685 hits Google books
[4]
livland "Russian empire" 192 hits Google books
[5]
courland "Russian empire" 655 hits Google books
[6]
kurland "Russian empire" 287 hits Google books
[7]
deutschland "Russian empire" 494 hits Google books
[9]
In google scholar:
"Russian empire" + estland 337 hits in Google scholar
[10]
"Russian empire" + estonia 3580 hits in Google scholar
[11]
Clearly estonia/livonia/courland/germany is more common in english usage than the germanic estland/livland/kurland/deutschland, if you dig further you will find the german form is usually associated with some German language article or book. We don't have a category
Category:People from Deutschland in english wikipedia to avoid confusion with people born in the modern German state.
Martintg (
talk) 05:23, 11 March 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:Buildings and structures in Stirling
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.
the wub"?!" 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment (nominator): Creator has emptied the old category and replaced it with a new one of the proposed name. In light of this, I suppose this nomination could be closed.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 13:07, 13 March 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:Expatriate football players to Category:Expatriate footballers
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 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: majority of category pages use the more concise term "footballer" in their naming
Mayumashu (
talk) 02:04, 11 March 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.