The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bahá'í individuals
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 as is - We have a great number of categories for individual people, most of which use the word "people", an ambiguous term that can be misconstrued and has proven problematic in a number of cases. There are currently a number of other open CFDs aiming to rename quite a few existing categories using the word "people", to impose conformity with other similar categories -- but this move is
not being greeted with universal approval. The word "individuals", on the other hand, is clear and precise, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the category, and doesn't have the "semantic baggage" of the word "people".
Cgingold (
talk)
03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
undecided - I don't really like calling it "Baha'is", and I think it's a little odd saying "Baha'i individuals", but I don't have a better solution. BTW I'm a Baha'i.
Cuñado ☼ -
Talk15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Alternative rename (or merge as it may be) to Bahá'í people. I just don t get how 'people' is in any way ambiguous?? A universal naming scheme for all cat pages for people by nationality, ethnicity, and religious groups, in part because the lines between these three classifications can be fuzzy, and the issue with using the plural noun is that a few groups don t have a plural noun form besides adding 'people' (Dutch, French, English, and likely -ese ending ones like Chinese) Use of 'individuals' sounds to me as nothing more than an avoidance of the word 'people', which again is not ambiguous or otherwise problematic
Mayumashu (
talk)
15:24, 7 May 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:Bábí individuals
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 as is - We have a great number of categories for individual people, most of which use the word "people", an ambiguous term that can be misconstrued and has proven problematic in a number of cases. There are currently a number of other open CFDs aiming to rename quite a few existing categories using the word "people", to impose conformity with other similar categories -- but this move is
not being greeted with universal approval. The word "individuals", on the other hand, is clear and precise, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the category, and doesn't have the "semantic baggage" of the word "people".
Cgingold (
talk)
03:00, 5 May 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.
Swiss-German diaspora
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.
Swiss-German is a linguistic as well as an "ethnic" difference. Some of these are Jewish. In the particular circumstances of Switzerland, "Swiss-German" is one national/ethnic category.
Johnbod (
talk)
17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting categorizing people by nationality and language?
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Obviously not in most cases, but here Swiss-German is a single defining quality, not an intersection (for avoidance of doubt, Swiss-Germans are not actually German).
Johnbod (
talk)
18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. as
Swiss German legitimately constitute an
ethnic group and the term
diaspora can be used to described the migration and its legacy of any ethnic group. I agree with Johnbod that Cat:Swiss-German Americans should be merged into Cat:Americans of Swiss-German descent but not in this nomination. there needs to be an across the board nomination if any to change Cat:Fooians Booian to Cat:Booians of Fooian descent
Mayumashu (
talk)
04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The problem with using the term "diaspora" to describe Swiss German migration on Wikipedia is that no one outside Wikipedia appears use the term. There are exactly zero hits for the term. With no reliable secondary sources, use of the term here violates our ban on
original research.
Otto4711 (
talk)
13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)reply
but to insist on outside referencing/sourcing for this group seems very much to be a misunderstanding what the term means as it is defined elsewhere and here - a diaspora is simply those of an ethnic or national group who have em/immigrated and their descendants. I don t seeing how applying an already defined term discriptively can be regarded as original research
Mayumashu (
talk)
15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not insisting on outside referencing as to the existence of the group. I want secondary sourcing for the concept Swiss-German diaspora. The lack of such sourcing indicates that "Swiss-German diaspora" is an invention of the editor who created the category, which is disallowed under
WP:OR.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)reply
again, its taking two apparently legitimate descriptive terms 'Swiss-German' and 'diaspora' and combining them, which results in a further description. (
Diaspora are any ethnic groups' migrants and their descendants and
Swiss German is a recognized ethnic group.) To provide description is not to do Original Research as OR requires analysis of some kind, which providing mere description is not. The only question therefore is whether the description provided by the category is significant or trivial, which brings me to Johnbod's question. As a sub-national ethnic group, the two, S-G diaspora and people of S-G descent don t differ (I wasn t really aware of it till now). national ethnic groups as such also have emigrants and expats listed under diaspora, as diaspora cover any and all forms of those who leave and their descendants. I (or at least I believe it was me) created it I guess because other sub-national ethnic groups (for instance
Basques and
Kurds) tend to have their diaspora more readily described surely due to their higher profile (and perhaps greater dispersal), although my thinking when creating the page was simply that there wasn t a page for yet there are S-G diaspora. In short, having
Category:Swiss-German diaspora is important for having a list at
Category:Diasporas without omissions.
Mayumashu (
talk)
05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Taking one descriptive term and combining it with another descriptive term to create a new term that is not in use outside of Wikipedia is synthesis, in other words original research.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well said. And taking the term synthesis into consideration, which I see is discussed on WP:OR, I can see now, I think, how what I ve presented involves not analysis but deduction (or is it inducation?), which is an element of doing research. I change my vote to a delete for
Category:Swiss-German diaspora but a keep for the rest'Mayumashu (
talk)
16:31, 9 May 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:MILF Actress
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as hopelessly subjective and absolutely non-defining. The personal sexual tastes of individual editors regarding the fuckability of actresses is no basis for categorization.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It also presents a mind numbing precedent. If actors/actresses are categorized by each sub-genre that they work(ed) in then the number of categories could number in the hundreds for a single article. Dismas|
(talk)21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per Otto4711. Category practically begs for subjective analysis of whether an actress falls into this category.
Tabercil (
talk)
22:12, 4 May 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:Alumni and faculty of Saint Petersburg Technological Institute
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumni of South Ural State University
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Banjax Studios
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumni of St. Petersburg Polytechnical University
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: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that.
РоссавиаДиалог15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename for consistency: shortening by 2 chars does not worth the surprise for the users. I was the original creator of the category
Alex Bakharev (
talk)
10:54, 5 May 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:Alumni of St. Petersburg State University
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: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that.
РоссавиаДиалог15:36, 4 May 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:St. Petersburg State University
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: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that.
РоссавиаДиалог15:34, 4 May 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:United States federal commerce legislation
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:Merge, two cats with the same domain, proposing merge into the one with more articles.
PowersT13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge - this appears to be for legislation enacted under Congress's
Commerce Clause power so including the word "commerce" in the category name makes better sense to me.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: In general, this is probably a valid inference, but strictly speaking I'm doubtful that we know for certain with respect to any given piece of legislation what authority may have been cited, without perhaps reading the text of the legislation or the Congressional Record. So I think it probably wouldn't be a usable criterion on which to base a category.
Cgingold (
talk)
20:21, 4 May 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:Attractions in Indianapolis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Polish borders
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.
Rename per nom. I'd say this could actually be Speedy renamed per Speedy Criteria #4: Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions.
Cgingold (
talk)
08:07, 5 May 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:National field hockey teams
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.
Note that if this proposal is approved the womens' teams in it will need to be recategorized, but I tend to see this as an unnecessary sex-based categorization.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:05, 5 May 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:Image galleries
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.
I'll agree the whole area is a mess. Theoretically, we shouldn't really have any article-space galleries, because Wikipedia is not an image repository; that's what Commons is for. Encyclopedia topics that would benefit from a display of related media should use the {{Commons}} or {{Commonscat}} templates to direct users there. However, I'm not prepared yet to say that all such galleries should necessarily be transwikied; there may be a use for them of which I'm not aware. Any such galleries not transwikied to Commons should be in
Category:Image galleries. Now, of course, the categorization of
Category:Image galleries should be reconsidered; it should definitely not be in a Wikipedia-specific category tree. (In fact, a lot of
Category:Wikipedia image galleries subcats are miscategorized themselves.) But that's a separate issue.
PowersT13:42, 10 May 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.
Categories for Canadian soccer
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: 'soccer' is the standard term for the association football in Canada, as in the States and most cat pages reflect this local usage - these are the ones do not
Mayumashu (
talk)
02:04, 4 May 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:Middle-earth Orcs
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 or reorganise - see
Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Redirects pointing at list articles are one of the five possibilities mentioned at that guideline (please note that others supported that guideline, even thought I was the one that started it). These redirects are, in any case categorised at
Category:Middle-earth redirects. One possibility, if these categories are considered unsuitable for readers, is to move them to be subcategories of
Category:Middle-earth redirects, just so that the editors of the encyclopedia can see the redirects organised by topic. Please note that this system (of categorising the redirects pointing at a list article) was set up before it became possible to select "redirects" on "what links here" for an article, in this case a list article (previously you had to scan the "what links here" list to find the redirects). Others have adopted this system as well, especially for categorising articles that have been merged to list articles, so in some sense this is a fairly widespread practice (eg.
Category:Dynasty characters, with many redirects to
Dynasty minor characters). If there is disagreement with this general practice, it should probably be discussed at
Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects and/or other places. I agree that categories where everything other than the list is a redirect, or where there are only redirects, probably need to be dealt with another way. If deletion is the result, I will move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (which is an administrative category, not part of the main category structure, hence this effectively removes the category from the view of readers), rather than have the bot remove the category from the redirects.
Carcharoth (
talk)
06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep An elegant method of categorising articles and in particular sections of articles. (I don't see that the reader is in any way disadvantaged by a variety of browsing possibilities.) The proportion of redirects seems immaterial - some may in future be fleshed out into articles.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk)
14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -
small category with little or no growth potential. It is unlikely that any of these individual orcs could be fleshed out into articles that would pass the relevant policies and guidelines for writing about fiction, and the list article serves as a repository for the information related to the redirected articles. The category serves no navigational function.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Would you oppose the category being moved to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects, thus keeping an organised category structure for editors, rather than readers, to scan and decide whether any redirects are missing or could be expanded?
Carcharoth (
talk)
16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Move to a subcategory of
Middle-earth redirects as proposed by Carcharoth. As a background for this discussion, one should notice that this category has already been deleted once (after the list article had been created and stubs turned into redirects) and please see an old discussion at
Category talk:Middle-earth Orcs. Following the latter, me and Carcharoth virtually established a practice that (as I understood it) every Middle-earth character, item etc. should have a redirect present in a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth so that a full image is visible. I am aware of all the redundancies of such a system, and so won't oppose replacing it by a better one. My chief concern is that it should be readily visible for editors which of the redirects (for characters with several names etc) is the "main" one, that is which preserves edit history and should be used for linking; thus, moving all categories that duplicate lists to an administrative subcat seems quite reasonable. Possibly they should even be subcats of
Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections, with
Template:MER to section removed from them. For convenience, common articles can remain in these cats, just stuck {{hiddencat}} to it. BTW, it would be better to rename Category:Middle-earth redirects with all subcats to Cat:WikiProject Middle-earth redirects; and also notice that there's a bundle of cats that hopefully will also be depopulated and should share the ultimate fate.
Súrendil (
talk)
15:47, 8 May 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:Kings of Dale
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -
small category with little or no growth potential. The single article in the category serves as an appropriate repository for the information connected to the redirects, which all redirect to it.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:18, 4 May 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:Chieftains of the Dúnedain
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete (I presume that's the proposal). If the redirects went to multiple articles I might support keeping this category. But since all of them are to the very same article, I don't see a good rationale for keeping it.
Cgingold (
talk)
05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:38, 4 May 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:Middle-earth materials
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:38, 4 May 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:Ents
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -
WP:OCAT#Small category with little or no growth potential. All of the redirects point back to the same article
Ent which serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the main article and its single existing sub-article.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:07, 4 May 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:Middle-earth horses
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per my comments above. (The nom could have grouped these together - this reader is inconvenienced more by the inelegant nom than by the elegant categories.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk)
14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as what amounts to an empty category with no lead article. Anyone interested in one or more of these horses is most likely going to type its name in the search box and be taken to
List of Middle-earth animals where it appears information on all the redirected horses exists. The category serves no navigational purpose.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:14, 4 May 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 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:Bahá'í individuals
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 as is - We have a great number of categories for individual people, most of which use the word "people", an ambiguous term that can be misconstrued and has proven problematic in a number of cases. There are currently a number of other open CFDs aiming to rename quite a few existing categories using the word "people", to impose conformity with other similar categories -- but this move is
not being greeted with universal approval. The word "individuals", on the other hand, is clear and precise, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the category, and doesn't have the "semantic baggage" of the word "people".
Cgingold (
talk)
03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
undecided - I don't really like calling it "Baha'is", and I think it's a little odd saying "Baha'i individuals", but I don't have a better solution. BTW I'm a Baha'i.
Cuñado ☼ -
Talk15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Alternative rename (or merge as it may be) to Bahá'í people. I just don t get how 'people' is in any way ambiguous?? A universal naming scheme for all cat pages for people by nationality, ethnicity, and religious groups, in part because the lines between these three classifications can be fuzzy, and the issue with using the plural noun is that a few groups don t have a plural noun form besides adding 'people' (Dutch, French, English, and likely -ese ending ones like Chinese) Use of 'individuals' sounds to me as nothing more than an avoidance of the word 'people', which again is not ambiguous or otherwise problematic
Mayumashu (
talk)
15:24, 7 May 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:Bábí individuals
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 as is - We have a great number of categories for individual people, most of which use the word "people", an ambiguous term that can be misconstrued and has proven problematic in a number of cases. There are currently a number of other open CFDs aiming to rename quite a few existing categories using the word "people", to impose conformity with other similar categories -- but this move is
not being greeted with universal approval. The word "individuals", on the other hand, is clear and precise, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the category, and doesn't have the "semantic baggage" of the word "people".
Cgingold (
talk)
03:00, 5 May 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.
Swiss-German diaspora
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.
Swiss-German is a linguistic as well as an "ethnic" difference. Some of these are Jewish. In the particular circumstances of Switzerland, "Swiss-German" is one national/ethnic category.
Johnbod (
talk)
17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting categorizing people by nationality and language?
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Obviously not in most cases, but here Swiss-German is a single defining quality, not an intersection (for avoidance of doubt, Swiss-Germans are not actually German).
Johnbod (
talk)
18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. as
Swiss German legitimately constitute an
ethnic group and the term
diaspora can be used to described the migration and its legacy of any ethnic group. I agree with Johnbod that Cat:Swiss-German Americans should be merged into Cat:Americans of Swiss-German descent but not in this nomination. there needs to be an across the board nomination if any to change Cat:Fooians Booian to Cat:Booians of Fooian descent
Mayumashu (
talk)
04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The problem with using the term "diaspora" to describe Swiss German migration on Wikipedia is that no one outside Wikipedia appears use the term. There are exactly zero hits for the term. With no reliable secondary sources, use of the term here violates our ban on
original research.
Otto4711 (
talk)
13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)reply
but to insist on outside referencing/sourcing for this group seems very much to be a misunderstanding what the term means as it is defined elsewhere and here - a diaspora is simply those of an ethnic or national group who have em/immigrated and their descendants. I don t seeing how applying an already defined term discriptively can be regarded as original research
Mayumashu (
talk)
15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not insisting on outside referencing as to the existence of the group. I want secondary sourcing for the concept Swiss-German diaspora. The lack of such sourcing indicates that "Swiss-German diaspora" is an invention of the editor who created the category, which is disallowed under
WP:OR.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)reply
again, its taking two apparently legitimate descriptive terms 'Swiss-German' and 'diaspora' and combining them, which results in a further description. (
Diaspora are any ethnic groups' migrants and their descendants and
Swiss German is a recognized ethnic group.) To provide description is not to do Original Research as OR requires analysis of some kind, which providing mere description is not. The only question therefore is whether the description provided by the category is significant or trivial, which brings me to Johnbod's question. As a sub-national ethnic group, the two, S-G diaspora and people of S-G descent don t differ (I wasn t really aware of it till now). national ethnic groups as such also have emigrants and expats listed under diaspora, as diaspora cover any and all forms of those who leave and their descendants. I (or at least I believe it was me) created it I guess because other sub-national ethnic groups (for instance
Basques and
Kurds) tend to have their diaspora more readily described surely due to their higher profile (and perhaps greater dispersal), although my thinking when creating the page was simply that there wasn t a page for yet there are S-G diaspora. In short, having
Category:Swiss-German diaspora is important for having a list at
Category:Diasporas without omissions.
Mayumashu (
talk)
05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Taking one descriptive term and combining it with another descriptive term to create a new term that is not in use outside of Wikipedia is synthesis, in other words original research.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well said. And taking the term synthesis into consideration, which I see is discussed on WP:OR, I can see now, I think, how what I ve presented involves not analysis but deduction (or is it inducation?), which is an element of doing research. I change my vote to a delete for
Category:Swiss-German diaspora but a keep for the rest'Mayumashu (
talk)
16:31, 9 May 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:MILF Actress
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as hopelessly subjective and absolutely non-defining. The personal sexual tastes of individual editors regarding the fuckability of actresses is no basis for categorization.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It also presents a mind numbing precedent. If actors/actresses are categorized by each sub-genre that they work(ed) in then the number of categories could number in the hundreds for a single article. Dismas|
(talk)21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per Otto4711. Category practically begs for subjective analysis of whether an actress falls into this category.
Tabercil (
talk)
22:12, 4 May 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:Alumni and faculty of Saint Petersburg Technological Institute
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumni of South Ural State University
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Banjax Studios
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumni of St. Petersburg Polytechnical University
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: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that.
РоссавиаДиалог15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename for consistency: shortening by 2 chars does not worth the surprise for the users. I was the original creator of the category
Alex Bakharev (
talk)
10:54, 5 May 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:Alumni of St. Petersburg State University
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: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that.
РоссавиаДиалог15:36, 4 May 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:St. Petersburg State University
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: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that.
РоссавиаДиалог15:34, 4 May 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:United States federal commerce legislation
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:Merge, two cats with the same domain, proposing merge into the one with more articles.
PowersT13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge - this appears to be for legislation enacted under Congress's
Commerce Clause power so including the word "commerce" in the category name makes better sense to me.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: In general, this is probably a valid inference, but strictly speaking I'm doubtful that we know for certain with respect to any given piece of legislation what authority may have been cited, without perhaps reading the text of the legislation or the Congressional Record. So I think it probably wouldn't be a usable criterion on which to base a category.
Cgingold (
talk)
20:21, 4 May 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:Attractions in Indianapolis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Polish borders
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.
Rename per nom. I'd say this could actually be Speedy renamed per Speedy Criteria #4: Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions.
Cgingold (
talk)
08:07, 5 May 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:National field hockey teams
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.
Note that if this proposal is approved the womens' teams in it will need to be recategorized, but I tend to see this as an unnecessary sex-based categorization.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:05, 5 May 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:Image galleries
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.
I'll agree the whole area is a mess. Theoretically, we shouldn't really have any article-space galleries, because Wikipedia is not an image repository; that's what Commons is for. Encyclopedia topics that would benefit from a display of related media should use the {{Commons}} or {{Commonscat}} templates to direct users there. However, I'm not prepared yet to say that all such galleries should necessarily be transwikied; there may be a use for them of which I'm not aware. Any such galleries not transwikied to Commons should be in
Category:Image galleries. Now, of course, the categorization of
Category:Image galleries should be reconsidered; it should definitely not be in a Wikipedia-specific category tree. (In fact, a lot of
Category:Wikipedia image galleries subcats are miscategorized themselves.) But that's a separate issue.
PowersT13:42, 10 May 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.
Categories for Canadian soccer
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: 'soccer' is the standard term for the association football in Canada, as in the States and most cat pages reflect this local usage - these are the ones do not
Mayumashu (
talk)
02:04, 4 May 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:Middle-earth Orcs
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 or reorganise - see
Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Redirects pointing at list articles are one of the five possibilities mentioned at that guideline (please note that others supported that guideline, even thought I was the one that started it). These redirects are, in any case categorised at
Category:Middle-earth redirects. One possibility, if these categories are considered unsuitable for readers, is to move them to be subcategories of
Category:Middle-earth redirects, just so that the editors of the encyclopedia can see the redirects organised by topic. Please note that this system (of categorising the redirects pointing at a list article) was set up before it became possible to select "redirects" on "what links here" for an article, in this case a list article (previously you had to scan the "what links here" list to find the redirects). Others have adopted this system as well, especially for categorising articles that have been merged to list articles, so in some sense this is a fairly widespread practice (eg.
Category:Dynasty characters, with many redirects to
Dynasty minor characters). If there is disagreement with this general practice, it should probably be discussed at
Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects and/or other places. I agree that categories where everything other than the list is a redirect, or where there are only redirects, probably need to be dealt with another way. If deletion is the result, I will move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (which is an administrative category, not part of the main category structure, hence this effectively removes the category from the view of readers), rather than have the bot remove the category from the redirects.
Carcharoth (
talk)
06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep An elegant method of categorising articles and in particular sections of articles. (I don't see that the reader is in any way disadvantaged by a variety of browsing possibilities.) The proportion of redirects seems immaterial - some may in future be fleshed out into articles.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk)
14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -
small category with little or no growth potential. It is unlikely that any of these individual orcs could be fleshed out into articles that would pass the relevant policies and guidelines for writing about fiction, and the list article serves as a repository for the information related to the redirected articles. The category serves no navigational function.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Would you oppose the category being moved to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects, thus keeping an organised category structure for editors, rather than readers, to scan and decide whether any redirects are missing or could be expanded?
Carcharoth (
talk)
16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Move to a subcategory of
Middle-earth redirects as proposed by Carcharoth. As a background for this discussion, one should notice that this category has already been deleted once (after the list article had been created and stubs turned into redirects) and please see an old discussion at
Category talk:Middle-earth Orcs. Following the latter, me and Carcharoth virtually established a practice that (as I understood it) every Middle-earth character, item etc. should have a redirect present in a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth so that a full image is visible. I am aware of all the redundancies of such a system, and so won't oppose replacing it by a better one. My chief concern is that it should be readily visible for editors which of the redirects (for characters with several names etc) is the "main" one, that is which preserves edit history and should be used for linking; thus, moving all categories that duplicate lists to an administrative subcat seems quite reasonable. Possibly they should even be subcats of
Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections, with
Template:MER to section removed from them. For convenience, common articles can remain in these cats, just stuck {{hiddencat}} to it. BTW, it would be better to rename Category:Middle-earth redirects with all subcats to Cat:WikiProject Middle-earth redirects; and also notice that there's a bundle of cats that hopefully will also be depopulated and should share the ultimate fate.
Súrendil (
talk)
15:47, 8 May 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:Kings of Dale
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -
small category with little or no growth potential. The single article in the category serves as an appropriate repository for the information connected to the redirects, which all redirect to it.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:18, 4 May 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:Chieftains of the Dúnedain
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete (I presume that's the proposal). If the redirects went to multiple articles I might support keeping this category. But since all of them are to the very same article, I don't see a good rationale for keeping it.
Cgingold (
talk)
05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:38, 4 May 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:Middle-earth materials
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:38, 4 May 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:Ents
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -
WP:OCAT#Small category with little or no growth potential. All of the redirects point back to the same article
Ent which serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the main article and its single existing sub-article.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:07, 4 May 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:Middle-earth horses
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.
Comment - please see
here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of
Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks.
Carcharoth (
talk)
07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per my comments above. (The nom could have grouped these together - this reader is inconvenienced more by the inelegant nom than by the elegant categories.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk)
14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as what amounts to an empty category with no lead article. Anyone interested in one or more of these horses is most likely going to type its name in the search box and be taken to
List of Middle-earth animals where it appears information on all the redirected horses exists. The category serves no navigational purpose.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:14, 4 May 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.