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:Close. Perhaps best all round if we bring this to a conclusion. CSD'ing this category, even if empty, so soon after the DRV seems, in hindsight, to have been distinctly unhelpful. Best course is probably to revisit this category in a few weeks when the dust has settled and we can assess usage post-DRV. --Xdamrtalk01:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Was nominated for a C1 speedy. However this was deleted after a full discussion at CfD which was overturned at
deletion review. With that history, I don't believe that this should be considered for a speedy delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - the DRV close suggests scrupulous repopulation. Perhaps one of the supporters of this category could supply an objective fad or 2 to place within it.
Occuli (
talk)
00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I tagged this for C1 purely on the grounds that it was empty. With respect to Vegaswikian, I don't think that raising a new cfd is especially useful. If a category is empty, then it's C1 - either use it or lose it. --Xdamrtalk12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, given the history at DRV where the deletion was overturned, it really should be discussed here. Those that fought to keep now have a chance to act. The deletion review was closed about 2 days before the nomination as a C1. A nomination that soon after the close that most editors will not see is, in my opinion contrary to the intent of the DRV decision.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Ugh. This was not eligible for a speedy deletion in spirit, and the letter-of-the-law is quite a stretch. I was actually a bit unsure after the DRV if I should undelete the category itself or merely allow it to be recreated. With a few exceptions, the actual category page holds very little information—so this is typically a meaningless distinction of admin buttons vs. no admin buttons. The deletion of a category has much more to do with its massive depopulation. In a way, I wasn't overturning the deletion/depopulation so much as I was allowing its recreation (i.e. selective repopulation). I didn't think long and hard about the criteria for speedy deletion in relationship to categories, but I didn't think anybody would be that persnickity. Silly me. People seem to forget so often that
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I did raise the possibility that this category be relisted at some point in the future, but I wasn't thinking it would be on an odd technicality like this. So if this is being listed because someone thinks that they can hash out the category in a better way (this is, after all, Categories for Discussion), of if it is simply a referendum on my closure, fine. I don't really have any more say in the matter, and I frankly couldn't care that much about this category anyway. If it is just so that we can leap through another hoop, please speedy close this thing.
IronGargoyle (
talk)
20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Just make it go away - clearly there are serious issues regarding the existence and population of this category and its potential sub-cats. I suggest a variation on userfying. Delete the category and if an editor feels passionate enough about it let them gather the evidence to answer the problems on some sort of user subpage and then bring it back to DRV to request re-creation.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Wave revival
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:Green electronics
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: "Green electronics" is a less formal term than the more formal and broader term of" Electronics and the environment". The proposed name will also fit in with a related article that I will create and it fits in with similar category names. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
"Issues" aren't always bad, just something to consider. I can empathize for the effort to clean up a category hierarchy. See the CFR for Cat:Craters below for one that I'm involved in. But I have to agree with Vegaswikian in this case that I don't even see the need for Cat:Green electronics or Cat:Electronics and the environment, considering the duplication with Cat:Computers and environmental issues. Yes, electronics is a wider topic than computers. But these categories are close enough and aren't big enough for two of them. So an alternative I could go along with would be to rename to Cat:Electronics and the environment if Cat:Computers and environmental issues is also merged into it, possibly as a separate CFM.
Ikluft (
talk)
15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. This proposal does make an improvement by changing an informal term with political undertones to a clearer term. I'll go along with this. I'll make the merging of
Category:Computers and environmental issues with it a suggestion for a separate CFM, not a condition for this CFR.
Ikluft (
talk)
07:46, 30 August 2009 (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:Peasant foods
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:Delete. Seems very prone to
WP:OR. The stated criteria "Peasant foods are traditional regional or ethnic dishes made from accessible ingredients and enjoyed by poorer people" seems way too wide a net to be a viable category. Does it include basically everything outside of haute cuisine? Do foods of the urban poor not count as "peasant"? The subcats are even odders, with "Pizza" and "Offal" as subcats.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. And with the recent rise of interest in food and cooking, one country's "peasant food" can become another country's haute cuisine, making this category extremely difficult to define objectively and without
WP:OR.
GeoffTC14:35, 28 August 2009 (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:Commissioners of Docks
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:Rename. Rename to fuller title. I don't believe that this is commonly used so the short form probably does not meet being the common name. Historical accuracy may be more important.
Category:Dock commissioners may be the common name, but I suspect that would be ambiguous. Apparently the full name of the position was Commissioner of Docks and Ferries of the City of New York, but that could be overkill.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. In UK we have Docks and Harbour Boards, which presumably have a leader, so it might be safer to mention US, or New York, in there somewhere.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
08:30, 24 August 2009 (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:Chamois Niortais FC and related
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.
Usher categories
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.
Support 1st one, oppose 2nd and 3rd. While the parent category could be confused with other things, I don't see how anyone would think these are songs about theatre ushers or albums by Poe's House of Usher or anything but Usher Raymond's work.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
11:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
In both those cases, confusion is likely. "Ashanti" is an ethnic group, and "queen" could be a song's subject rather than the artist. There isn't any confusion in bands like
Jethro Tull (band), and so they don't have the disambiguator in their category names. It's a case by case basis, and in Usher's case, the disambiguator doesn't seem needed to me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:32, 23 August 2009 (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.
Firearms by company
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:Rename. Since the category is for the firearms produced by a company, the name of the category should reflect that.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:04, 22 August 2009 (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:Remington Arms Company firearms
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:Reverse merge. Found as an empty out of process. The category is for the firearms made by the company and that is how it is parented. If we need a category for the company, then the old category should be a parent of the firearms one. The moved name is not an accurate description of its contents.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This was an out of process empty that was nominated for a speedy deletion. I list these when there is an issue that, in my opinion, may say that the nomination may not be the right way to go and see if consensus is there to support the change or not. In this case, I'm suggesting that the reverse merge, (restore things the way they were) is the right thing to do. I'm still trying to find a good way to process these, and better word the nominations. Since the queue is huge, maybe when I have the time I short cut the wording trying to process more of the backlog. So if any admins want to help check these, feel free to jump in. Bottom line, the source should not be deleted and the target should be merged into the one that was nominated for deletion. Bottom line,
Category:Remington Arms Company firearms was nominated for deletion as empty and the contents are in
Category:Remington Arms Company. Do you want to endorse that move of not?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is what I'm suggesting, to undo the out of process move of the contents. Maybe you need to comment on the usage of C1 to empty categories like this one and the problems that it causes when the rename is not the best alternative.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:38, 26 August 2009 (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:Markov chains
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 nominated category. At close it was still empty. However, because of how this proceeded, I'm not going to say that a re-creation of
Category:Markov chains as a subcategory is necessarily "prohibited" in the future.Good Ol’factory(talk)22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Apparently moved out of process. The main article is
Markov chains so I'm not convinced that the new name is right. When I first saw the new name I thought is was an agency for models.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Technically,
Vegaswikian did not nominate this article; I did. I nominated it for speedy deletion several hours after I created it. I gave my reasons for my nomination at
Category talk:Markov chains already as you are not supposed to post on this page when requesting a speedy deletion. I do not know why
Vegaswikian converted it to a "regular" renaming, unless he/she did not read my comments. I am perfectly aware that the main article is named
Markov chain, as explained in my reasons; I also explained there the rationale for the change, though I admit it is very brief. Also, the category has now been empty for over 4 days, that being the fourth criterion it meets for speedy deletion. Please read
my nomination for more information. I would appreciate this still being treated as a speedy deletion, but I suppose it no longer applies for a speedy process because it is "under discussion". —
Skittleys (
talk)
14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment It would be good to have both cats eventually with Markov chains a subcat of either Markov processes or Markov models, but logically this would require that everyone agrees what is meant by a Markov Chain. Unfortunately there seems little agreement in published literature about what distinguishes a Markov Chain from a more general Markov process.
Melcombe (
talk)
09:35, 28 August 2009 (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:Black Sea resorts in Romania
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:Reverse merge. Another out of process rename. This done for 'consistent categorization with other countries'. My question is, is it reasonable to categorize the resorts on the Black Sea? If this should be done, then we need to do the reverse merge. If not, then we should delete the old category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Category:Seaside resorts in Romania. Even if we do decide that it is useful to have all Black Sea resorts categorised in one parent, it would contain all seaside resorts in Romania, Georgia, and Bulgaria (plus all of Ukraine if the Sea of Azov is regarded as part of the Black Sea), so those countries' "Seaside resorts in Foo" categories can serve as adequate children of it. Having two separate categories which will ostensibly contain exactly the same articles is overkill.
Grutness...wha?00:20, 23 August 2009 (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:Canadian Football League free agents
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: While I understand the motivation and use of categories such as this and the recently CfD'd
Category:National Football League free agents to organise free agents, by Wikipedia standards, this is not an acceptable article category as it is not a defining characteristic of a person; only a temporary contract state.
DoubleBlue (
talk)
17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete While I personally like the free agent categories, they hold no long term value and are nothing but temporary.--
Giants27 (
c|
s)
17:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't see the point to this one. Since players bounce around from league to league, many players may be CFL free agents but under contract to a IFL or UFL or whatever team.
Shootmaster 44 (
talk)
02:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - for all the reasons above. This kind of thing is a little difficult to maintain, as it's not clear what qualifies one for inclusion or how long they remain there.►Chris NelsonHolla!22:15, 24 August 2009 (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 of the Pas-de-Calais
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: Rename because (a) the standard format is "Buildings and structures in Y", not of Y; and (b) the name of the French department in question to which the cat refers is Pas-de-Calais, not "the" Pas-de-Calais
HeartofaDog (
talk)
16:26, 22 August 2009 (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:Endocannabinoid reuptake inhibitors
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:Delete: the existence of an endocannabinoid reuptake transporter is doubtful and/or controversial. Two of the three articles in this category
URB597 and
AM404 are believe to have primary actions in inhibiting the ligand degrading enzyme
FAAH (and thus may not even belong in a reuptake inhibitor category), the other article is not specific to endocannabinoids. If this category is to be renamed, I would suggest
Category:Inhibitors of endocannabinoid degrading enzymes which could be applied to three articles (both URB597 and AM404 but also
JZL184); however, I don't think it is necessary as the rate of growth of such a category would be very slow.--
Tea with toast (
talk)
16:19, 22 August 2009 (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:French lycée
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:Former political parties in Indonesia
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:Former political parties in South Africa
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:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal
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:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross
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:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross
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:Charleston Southern University Buccaneers football 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 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:Research institutions in Poland
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 As far as I am concerned, we should allow for speedying such cases, where one or a few categories deviate from a their parent's category convention.
Debresser (
talk)
16:58, 25 August 2009 (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.
Bands from
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:Bilaspur
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:Beaches in Vietnam
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:SpongeBob
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:Craters
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:Rename. This is an umbrella renaming proposal. All the higher-level categories in the
Category:Craters hierarchy with "craters" in the name have instructions that they are for impact craters, not craters of volcanic or explosives origins. Renaming them from "Craters..." to "Impact craters..." will make this purpose more obvious and reduce confusion. This was suggested as a separate task in
CFM for Cat:Astroblemes. I posted the question on WikiProjects
Geology and
Astronomy and got a favorable response.
Ikluft (
talk)
08:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Note - just in case anyone's tools expect the list to be alphabetical, Category:Craters is listed before Category:Carboniferous craters because it's the top of the hierarchy. The rest are alphabetical.
Ikluft (
talk)
08:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
rename per nom. This has always been confusing even as I was making sure that only impact craters went into this category tree and only volcanic craters went into its category tree.
Hmains (
talk)
20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
"Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth" would be accurate and acceptable. But let's avoid
WP:OVERCAT and
WP:CRYSTAL - either "Cat:Possible impact craters" or "Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth", not both. There isn't any discussion in science circles or on WP of "possible" impact craters anywhere else but Earth, where erosion blurs the issue. Though I can attest to the lengthy process to research and confirm one on Earth, as the discoverer/proposer of one possible large impact crater. (It isn't on WP because it isn't
WP:N yet.)
Ikluft (
talk)
08:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
use "Earth" to be absolutely clear on the matter. And I do remember seeing (non-Wikipedia, actual) articles about "possible impact craters" on non-Earthly bodies, and whether they were impact craters or created via some other means.
76.66.192.144 (
talk)
03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I can go along with "Cat:Possible craters" renamed to "Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth". As for any possible impact craters other than on Earth, that's a separate topic which will need its own
WP:RS to establish
WP:N.
Ikluft (
talk)
04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename To distinguish from volcanic and explosive craters. Notice that there are even more types of craters. Ants create waste craters at the exit of their nests
[1], and there is the
antlion, an insect that makes a crater in sand and places himself at the bottom (a super-sized version called
Sarlacc appears in Star Wars, when Jabba the Hutt condems Luke to jump into the crater and get eaten). --
Enric Naval (
talk)
11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename as per previous discussion. Without wanting to be a nuisance, but did somebody check whether all craters in all those articles are indeed impact craters?
Debresser (
talk)
16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I've checked most of them. They're doing pretty well now. I recently sorted confirmed and possible impact sites. Those listed in
Category:Earth Impact Database are the officially confirmed impact sites. Though the EID listing has some picky rules so some like
Alamo bolide impact which have proven shock features but an unknown outline/diameter, can't be listed. So
Category:Possible craters (proposed to be renamed to Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth) has those which are confirmed but not in EID, or notable suspected impact sites which are not confirmed. I also renamed two list articles for
Alaska and
Arizona and removed them from
Category:Lists of impact craters on Earth (a cat which already has impact craters in its name and is not part of this proposal). Volcanic sites may still be listed in some of these categories. We can more easily sweep volcanic sites to subcats of
Category:Volcanoes after this CFR is done.
Ikluft (
talk)
17:46, 25 August 2009 (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:Poisson processes
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 guy who just created this category has added to a large number of unrelated articles (or related only in mentioning Poisson). It would be easier to delete it and start over than to inspect all the bad entries and fix them individually.
Dicklyon (
talk)
07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I am also not sure quite what a Poisson process is, having not done statistics to the level where they were taught, but most of the articles that I sampled did seem either to be about a version of it or a phenomenon that it described. If there is rubbish in it, by all measn eliminate that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep We can thank and applaud
user LutzL, whose effort has removed a substantial number of articles related to Poisson, but not to Poisson processes. Rather puts lazy bums like me to shame.
Favonian (
talk)
18:02, 22 August 2009 (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:Apartheid in Namibia
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: Category only comprises two empty subcategories, and a bunch of articles not directly related to the category's topic.
uKER (
talk)
06:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong keep I may be biased as the creator of the category, but any category with dozens of articles and two subcategories seems to be useful to me. As for a name change, I think using the current name is better, since users are much more likely to know Namibia than South West Africa. However, if a change is the consensus, then I will support it.--
TM13:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This is not entirely correct. The United Nations recognized the area as Namibia in 1968 and the apartheid government didn't leave the area until 1989.--
TM13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. He is correct that the articles are not related (and indeed this category will have to be removed from them even is this category will be kept or renamed), and the two subcategories can stand by themselves.
Debresser (
talk)
16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What exactly is unrelated about apartheid and bantustans? or apartheid and racist military forces aimed at suppressing opposition? These are the hallmarks of the apartheid ideology.--
TM15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am not a subject matter expert, but my understanding is that
Apartheid refers specifically to the racial segregation laws and policies of South Africa. If that is the case then this category is improper because there was no such thing as "apartheid in Namibia". We have no article
Apartheid in Namibia and the apartheid article does not discuss Namibia.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Considering South West Africa was under South African rule from World War I until 1990, the system of bantustans segregation there could be considered essentially the same. To argue that it can't be apartheid because it wasn't in South Africa would be akin to arguing
NKVD special camp Nr. 7 was not part of the Gulag because it was not located in the Soviet Union.-
choster (
talk)
19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Grantville Gazettes
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 4 articles here are books in the 1632 series. There used to be about 15 more articles in this category before they were AFD'd. Support merging into the main book category.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
06:32, 22 August 2009 (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:Assiti Shards multiverse
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: Category has only 2 members and 1 subcategory. Reading the main article, it appears that none of the works in this multiverse, besides 1632, have articles. Not big enough to support a category.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
06:30, 22 August 2009 (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:Funk films
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: Small category, seems unlikely to grow. There doesn't seem to be a clear definition of what a funk film is; the sole article in the category,
Good Burger, isn't verified as a funk film. — Σxplicit02:43, 22 August 2009 (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:Close. Perhaps best all round if we bring this to a conclusion. CSD'ing this category, even if empty, so soon after the DRV seems, in hindsight, to have been distinctly unhelpful. Best course is probably to revisit this category in a few weeks when the dust has settled and we can assess usage post-DRV. --Xdamrtalk01:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Was nominated for a C1 speedy. However this was deleted after a full discussion at CfD which was overturned at
deletion review. With that history, I don't believe that this should be considered for a speedy delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - the DRV close suggests scrupulous repopulation. Perhaps one of the supporters of this category could supply an objective fad or 2 to place within it.
Occuli (
talk)
00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I tagged this for C1 purely on the grounds that it was empty. With respect to Vegaswikian, I don't think that raising a new cfd is especially useful. If a category is empty, then it's C1 - either use it or lose it. --Xdamrtalk12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, given the history at DRV where the deletion was overturned, it really should be discussed here. Those that fought to keep now have a chance to act. The deletion review was closed about 2 days before the nomination as a C1. A nomination that soon after the close that most editors will not see is, in my opinion contrary to the intent of the DRV decision.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Ugh. This was not eligible for a speedy deletion in spirit, and the letter-of-the-law is quite a stretch. I was actually a bit unsure after the DRV if I should undelete the category itself or merely allow it to be recreated. With a few exceptions, the actual category page holds very little information—so this is typically a meaningless distinction of admin buttons vs. no admin buttons. The deletion of a category has much more to do with its massive depopulation. In a way, I wasn't overturning the deletion/depopulation so much as I was allowing its recreation (i.e. selective repopulation). I didn't think long and hard about the criteria for speedy deletion in relationship to categories, but I didn't think anybody would be that persnickity. Silly me. People seem to forget so often that
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I did raise the possibility that this category be relisted at some point in the future, but I wasn't thinking it would be on an odd technicality like this. So if this is being listed because someone thinks that they can hash out the category in a better way (this is, after all, Categories for Discussion), of if it is simply a referendum on my closure, fine. I don't really have any more say in the matter, and I frankly couldn't care that much about this category anyway. If it is just so that we can leap through another hoop, please speedy close this thing.
IronGargoyle (
talk)
20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Just make it go away - clearly there are serious issues regarding the existence and population of this category and its potential sub-cats. I suggest a variation on userfying. Delete the category and if an editor feels passionate enough about it let them gather the evidence to answer the problems on some sort of user subpage and then bring it back to DRV to request re-creation.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Wave revival
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:Green electronics
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: "Green electronics" is a less formal term than the more formal and broader term of" Electronics and the environment". The proposed name will also fit in with a related article that I will create and it fits in with similar category names. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
"Issues" aren't always bad, just something to consider. I can empathize for the effort to clean up a category hierarchy. See the CFR for Cat:Craters below for one that I'm involved in. But I have to agree with Vegaswikian in this case that I don't even see the need for Cat:Green electronics or Cat:Electronics and the environment, considering the duplication with Cat:Computers and environmental issues. Yes, electronics is a wider topic than computers. But these categories are close enough and aren't big enough for two of them. So an alternative I could go along with would be to rename to Cat:Electronics and the environment if Cat:Computers and environmental issues is also merged into it, possibly as a separate CFM.
Ikluft (
talk)
15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. This proposal does make an improvement by changing an informal term with political undertones to a clearer term. I'll go along with this. I'll make the merging of
Category:Computers and environmental issues with it a suggestion for a separate CFM, not a condition for this CFR.
Ikluft (
talk)
07:46, 30 August 2009 (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:Peasant foods
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:Delete. Seems very prone to
WP:OR. The stated criteria "Peasant foods are traditional regional or ethnic dishes made from accessible ingredients and enjoyed by poorer people" seems way too wide a net to be a viable category. Does it include basically everything outside of haute cuisine? Do foods of the urban poor not count as "peasant"? The subcats are even odders, with "Pizza" and "Offal" as subcats.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. And with the recent rise of interest in food and cooking, one country's "peasant food" can become another country's haute cuisine, making this category extremely difficult to define objectively and without
WP:OR.
GeoffTC14:35, 28 August 2009 (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:Commissioners of Docks
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:Rename. Rename to fuller title. I don't believe that this is commonly used so the short form probably does not meet being the common name. Historical accuracy may be more important.
Category:Dock commissioners may be the common name, but I suspect that would be ambiguous. Apparently the full name of the position was Commissioner of Docks and Ferries of the City of New York, but that could be overkill.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. In UK we have Docks and Harbour Boards, which presumably have a leader, so it might be safer to mention US, or New York, in there somewhere.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
08:30, 24 August 2009 (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:Chamois Niortais FC and related
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.
Usher categories
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.
Support 1st one, oppose 2nd and 3rd. While the parent category could be confused with other things, I don't see how anyone would think these are songs about theatre ushers or albums by Poe's House of Usher or anything but Usher Raymond's work.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
11:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
In both those cases, confusion is likely. "Ashanti" is an ethnic group, and "queen" could be a song's subject rather than the artist. There isn't any confusion in bands like
Jethro Tull (band), and so they don't have the disambiguator in their category names. It's a case by case basis, and in Usher's case, the disambiguator doesn't seem needed to me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:32, 23 August 2009 (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.
Firearms by company
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:Rename. Since the category is for the firearms produced by a company, the name of the category should reflect that.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:04, 22 August 2009 (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:Remington Arms Company firearms
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:Reverse merge. Found as an empty out of process. The category is for the firearms made by the company and that is how it is parented. If we need a category for the company, then the old category should be a parent of the firearms one. The moved name is not an accurate description of its contents.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This was an out of process empty that was nominated for a speedy deletion. I list these when there is an issue that, in my opinion, may say that the nomination may not be the right way to go and see if consensus is there to support the change or not. In this case, I'm suggesting that the reverse merge, (restore things the way they were) is the right thing to do. I'm still trying to find a good way to process these, and better word the nominations. Since the queue is huge, maybe when I have the time I short cut the wording trying to process more of the backlog. So if any admins want to help check these, feel free to jump in. Bottom line, the source should not be deleted and the target should be merged into the one that was nominated for deletion. Bottom line,
Category:Remington Arms Company firearms was nominated for deletion as empty and the contents are in
Category:Remington Arms Company. Do you want to endorse that move of not?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is what I'm suggesting, to undo the out of process move of the contents. Maybe you need to comment on the usage of C1 to empty categories like this one and the problems that it causes when the rename is not the best alternative.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:38, 26 August 2009 (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:Markov chains
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 nominated category. At close it was still empty. However, because of how this proceeded, I'm not going to say that a re-creation of
Category:Markov chains as a subcategory is necessarily "prohibited" in the future.Good Ol’factory(talk)22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Apparently moved out of process. The main article is
Markov chains so I'm not convinced that the new name is right. When I first saw the new name I thought is was an agency for models.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Technically,
Vegaswikian did not nominate this article; I did. I nominated it for speedy deletion several hours after I created it. I gave my reasons for my nomination at
Category talk:Markov chains already as you are not supposed to post on this page when requesting a speedy deletion. I do not know why
Vegaswikian converted it to a "regular" renaming, unless he/she did not read my comments. I am perfectly aware that the main article is named
Markov chain, as explained in my reasons; I also explained there the rationale for the change, though I admit it is very brief. Also, the category has now been empty for over 4 days, that being the fourth criterion it meets for speedy deletion. Please read
my nomination for more information. I would appreciate this still being treated as a speedy deletion, but I suppose it no longer applies for a speedy process because it is "under discussion". —
Skittleys (
talk)
14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment It would be good to have both cats eventually with Markov chains a subcat of either Markov processes or Markov models, but logically this would require that everyone agrees what is meant by a Markov Chain. Unfortunately there seems little agreement in published literature about what distinguishes a Markov Chain from a more general Markov process.
Melcombe (
talk)
09:35, 28 August 2009 (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:Black Sea resorts in Romania
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:Reverse merge. Another out of process rename. This done for 'consistent categorization with other countries'. My question is, is it reasonable to categorize the resorts on the Black Sea? If this should be done, then we need to do the reverse merge. If not, then we should delete the old category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Category:Seaside resorts in Romania. Even if we do decide that it is useful to have all Black Sea resorts categorised in one parent, it would contain all seaside resorts in Romania, Georgia, and Bulgaria (plus all of Ukraine if the Sea of Azov is regarded as part of the Black Sea), so those countries' "Seaside resorts in Foo" categories can serve as adequate children of it. Having two separate categories which will ostensibly contain exactly the same articles is overkill.
Grutness...wha?00:20, 23 August 2009 (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:Canadian Football League free agents
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: While I understand the motivation and use of categories such as this and the recently CfD'd
Category:National Football League free agents to organise free agents, by Wikipedia standards, this is not an acceptable article category as it is not a defining characteristic of a person; only a temporary contract state.
DoubleBlue (
talk)
17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete While I personally like the free agent categories, they hold no long term value and are nothing but temporary.--
Giants27 (
c|
s)
17:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't see the point to this one. Since players bounce around from league to league, many players may be CFL free agents but under contract to a IFL or UFL or whatever team.
Shootmaster 44 (
talk)
02:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - for all the reasons above. This kind of thing is a little difficult to maintain, as it's not clear what qualifies one for inclusion or how long they remain there.►Chris NelsonHolla!22:15, 24 August 2009 (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 of the Pas-de-Calais
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: Rename because (a) the standard format is "Buildings and structures in Y", not of Y; and (b) the name of the French department in question to which the cat refers is Pas-de-Calais, not "the" Pas-de-Calais
HeartofaDog (
talk)
16:26, 22 August 2009 (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:Endocannabinoid reuptake inhibitors
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:Delete: the existence of an endocannabinoid reuptake transporter is doubtful and/or controversial. Two of the three articles in this category
URB597 and
AM404 are believe to have primary actions in inhibiting the ligand degrading enzyme
FAAH (and thus may not even belong in a reuptake inhibitor category), the other article is not specific to endocannabinoids. If this category is to be renamed, I would suggest
Category:Inhibitors of endocannabinoid degrading enzymes which could be applied to three articles (both URB597 and AM404 but also
JZL184); however, I don't think it is necessary as the rate of growth of such a category would be very slow.--
Tea with toast (
talk)
16:19, 22 August 2009 (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:French lycée
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:Former political parties in Indonesia
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:Former political parties in South Africa
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:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal
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:Recipients of US Distinguished Service Cross
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:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross
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:Charleston Southern University Buccaneers football 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 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:Research institutions in Poland
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 As far as I am concerned, we should allow for speedying such cases, where one or a few categories deviate from a their parent's category convention.
Debresser (
talk)
16:58, 25 August 2009 (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.
Bands from
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:Bilaspur
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:Beaches in Vietnam
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:SpongeBob
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:Craters
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:Rename. This is an umbrella renaming proposal. All the higher-level categories in the
Category:Craters hierarchy with "craters" in the name have instructions that they are for impact craters, not craters of volcanic or explosives origins. Renaming them from "Craters..." to "Impact craters..." will make this purpose more obvious and reduce confusion. This was suggested as a separate task in
CFM for Cat:Astroblemes. I posted the question on WikiProjects
Geology and
Astronomy and got a favorable response.
Ikluft (
talk)
08:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Note - just in case anyone's tools expect the list to be alphabetical, Category:Craters is listed before Category:Carboniferous craters because it's the top of the hierarchy. The rest are alphabetical.
Ikluft (
talk)
08:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
rename per nom. This has always been confusing even as I was making sure that only impact craters went into this category tree and only volcanic craters went into its category tree.
Hmains (
talk)
20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
"Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth" would be accurate and acceptable. But let's avoid
WP:OVERCAT and
WP:CRYSTAL - either "Cat:Possible impact craters" or "Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth", not both. There isn't any discussion in science circles or on WP of "possible" impact craters anywhere else but Earth, where erosion blurs the issue. Though I can attest to the lengthy process to research and confirm one on Earth, as the discoverer/proposer of one possible large impact crater. (It isn't on WP because it isn't
WP:N yet.)
Ikluft (
talk)
08:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)reply
use "Earth" to be absolutely clear on the matter. And I do remember seeing (non-Wikipedia, actual) articles about "possible impact craters" on non-Earthly bodies, and whether they were impact craters or created via some other means.
76.66.192.144 (
talk)
03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I can go along with "Cat:Possible craters" renamed to "Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth". As for any possible impact craters other than on Earth, that's a separate topic which will need its own
WP:RS to establish
WP:N.
Ikluft (
talk)
04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename To distinguish from volcanic and explosive craters. Notice that there are even more types of craters. Ants create waste craters at the exit of their nests
[1], and there is the
antlion, an insect that makes a crater in sand and places himself at the bottom (a super-sized version called
Sarlacc appears in Star Wars, when Jabba the Hutt condems Luke to jump into the crater and get eaten). --
Enric Naval (
talk)
11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename as per previous discussion. Without wanting to be a nuisance, but did somebody check whether all craters in all those articles are indeed impact craters?
Debresser (
talk)
16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I've checked most of them. They're doing pretty well now. I recently sorted confirmed and possible impact sites. Those listed in
Category:Earth Impact Database are the officially confirmed impact sites. Though the EID listing has some picky rules so some like
Alamo bolide impact which have proven shock features but an unknown outline/diameter, can't be listed. So
Category:Possible craters (proposed to be renamed to Cat:Possible impact craters on Earth) has those which are confirmed but not in EID, or notable suspected impact sites which are not confirmed. I also renamed two list articles for
Alaska and
Arizona and removed them from
Category:Lists of impact craters on Earth (a cat which already has impact craters in its name and is not part of this proposal). Volcanic sites may still be listed in some of these categories. We can more easily sweep volcanic sites to subcats of
Category:Volcanoes after this CFR is done.
Ikluft (
talk)
17:46, 25 August 2009 (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:Poisson processes
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 guy who just created this category has added to a large number of unrelated articles (or related only in mentioning Poisson). It would be easier to delete it and start over than to inspect all the bad entries and fix them individually.
Dicklyon (
talk)
07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I am also not sure quite what a Poisson process is, having not done statistics to the level where they were taught, but most of the articles that I sampled did seem either to be about a version of it or a phenomenon that it described. If there is rubbish in it, by all measn eliminate that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep We can thank and applaud
user LutzL, whose effort has removed a substantial number of articles related to Poisson, but not to Poisson processes. Rather puts lazy bums like me to shame.
Favonian (
talk)
18:02, 22 August 2009 (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:Apartheid in Namibia
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: Category only comprises two empty subcategories, and a bunch of articles not directly related to the category's topic.
uKER (
talk)
06:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong keep I may be biased as the creator of the category, but any category with dozens of articles and two subcategories seems to be useful to me. As for a name change, I think using the current name is better, since users are much more likely to know Namibia than South West Africa. However, if a change is the consensus, then I will support it.--
TM13:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This is not entirely correct. The United Nations recognized the area as Namibia in 1968 and the apartheid government didn't leave the area until 1989.--
TM13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. He is correct that the articles are not related (and indeed this category will have to be removed from them even is this category will be kept or renamed), and the two subcategories can stand by themselves.
Debresser (
talk)
16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What exactly is unrelated about apartheid and bantustans? or apartheid and racist military forces aimed at suppressing opposition? These are the hallmarks of the apartheid ideology.--
TM15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am not a subject matter expert, but my understanding is that
Apartheid refers specifically to the racial segregation laws and policies of South Africa. If that is the case then this category is improper because there was no such thing as "apartheid in Namibia". We have no article
Apartheid in Namibia and the apartheid article does not discuss Namibia.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Considering South West Africa was under South African rule from World War I until 1990, the system of bantustans segregation there could be considered essentially the same. To argue that it can't be apartheid because it wasn't in South Africa would be akin to arguing
NKVD special camp Nr. 7 was not part of the Gulag because it was not located in the Soviet Union.-
choster (
talk)
19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Grantville Gazettes
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 4 articles here are books in the 1632 series. There used to be about 15 more articles in this category before they were AFD'd. Support merging into the main book category.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
06:32, 22 August 2009 (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:Assiti Shards multiverse
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: Category has only 2 members and 1 subcategory. Reading the main article, it appears that none of the works in this multiverse, besides 1632, have articles. Not big enough to support a category.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
06:30, 22 August 2009 (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:Funk films
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: Small category, seems unlikely to grow. There doesn't seem to be a clear definition of what a funk film is; the sole article in the category,
Good Burger, isn't verified as a funk film. — Σxplicit02:43, 22 August 2009 (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.