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. In Barbados the word is spelled "labour". See, e.g.,
this government website. (And of course there is the
Barbados Labour Party.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. BTW, less of a biggie, but the category
Category:Labor relations in France should probably be changed too, since we tend to use UK spelling for European mainland categories. There are also a couplke in the subcategory "Labor disputes by country" which need looking at - notably the Pakistan one, but also some European ones.
Grutness...wha? 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support, should be a speedy. --
Soman (
talk) 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:58, 9 November 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:Labor relations 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The word is spelled "labour" in South African English. See, e.g.,
this government website.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support, should be a speedy. --
Soman (
talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:57, 9 November 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:Moroccan millionaires
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. --Xdamrtalk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete.
Category:Millionaires was deleted as too common and not meaningful, I don't see this as being different.
Tassedethe (
talk) 09:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Being a mere millionaire (and in what currency is this measured?) is not a defining characteristic at this point in time.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete A million is arbitrary, and even if the currency were fixed at pounds, euros, etc. fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and ordinary market cycles render wealth-based categorization largely meaningless.-
choster 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, although the hypothetical category '
Zimbabwean billionaries' could have been an interesting one to populate :), --
Soman (
talk) 22:26, 8 November 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 by former use
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 rename per nom.
Cjc13 (
talk) 20:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:56, 9 November 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:Next albums
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 nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:55, 9 November 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 in Greater St. Louis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. I would consider a reverse merge, because the article is just
Greater St. Louis.
Debresser (
talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support the reverse merge. Not all in St. Louis, Missouri are or would be in Greater St. Louis
Mayumashu (
talk) 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)reply
How come? Usually that whould be the case.
Debresser (
talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Both are valid groupings and the area is a logical parent for the city related material.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:21, 5 November 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:Adult contemporary albums
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. --Xdamrtalk 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I am not necessarily proposing deletion if the child categories placed in this can be better defined. Half the artists' categories I would not consider adult contemporary, even though individual songs by these artists have been adult contemporary hits. But I find it hard to call their albums "adult contemporary", which is what being placed in this category suggests. Also, the genre (and I'm not sure it really can be called a genre, rather a radio format) changes over time more than most. What wouldn't be played 10 years ago on AC may be a staple today. The point is AC seems to be more song based and cannot be defined to any particular album or artist for this to exist as is being utilized.
Wolfer68 (
talk) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Further comment: Note that there is no category for adult contemporary songs, although songs can be better defined as AC than albums. Also, in the U.S., Billboard magazine has only an AC songs chart, not an AC albums chart. --
Wolfer68 (
talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)reply
delete. I essentially agree with what Wolfer68 has written about this not being an album genre as such, or even a very viable one for songs since "contemporary" is constantly changing. I remember that on a self-proclaimed "adult contemporary" radio station I once heard a Gun N' Roses ballad, so ...
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, but work to find a better characterisation than "contemporary". Wikipedia should seek to be timeless. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The term "adult contemporary" has been used in radio for over 30 years, so the term is appropriate, just not the category. I would just have to say it is a non-defining characteristic. Most albums will not strictly contain only AC songs and definitely not an artist's span of albums. --
Wolfer68 (
talk) 10:10, 7 November 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:CMX video albums
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 rename per Vegaswikian. We split all the video albums out from albums in a long process involving well over a thousand category changes, starting with
this successful nomination in July. No video albums should now be in album categories, as album categories are reserved for audio albums. Similarly, like with the album and song categories, all video albums should have artist video album categories. (No objection on adding the "band" parenthetical, though.)--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:37, 5 November 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:Maximals
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.
Don't change - This one seems pretty clear. I don't know of any article that needs a Maximal category that isn't Transformers related.
Mathewignash (
talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support confusion with the magazine is readily possible.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 04:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak support. My first thought was a alternative of with
maxima. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:53, 9 November 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:Combiners
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. There is no article about
Combiner (Transformers), so I don't even know if this is an actual type of Transformer or just a fan neologism. At the very least it needs to be renamed
Category:Combiners (Transformers) since the current name is ambiguous and could be confused for one for electronic combiners (see
diplexer).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
RENAME - The proposed name Combiners (Transformers) clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you add any insight as to why there is no article about this and where the name "Combiners" comes from?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Probably hasn't been written yet. I could do one if it's requested. Combiners (sometimes called gestalts) are mentioned in supporting media for Transformers. In fact I believe Hasbro recently used Combiners in a press release about the last film they did.
Mathewignash (
talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
As long as it's a verifiable term I have no problem with it existing without a main article.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:53, 9 November 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:Convoys
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:52, 9 November 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:Headmasters
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:52, 9 November 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:Primes
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:52, 9 November 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:Seekers
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:51, 9 November 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.
Test 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete Test 1/2, Keep X1/2 as an analog to
Template:X1 and
Template:x2. --Xdamrtalk 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge all or delete all - I don't think we need 3 4 different test categories. Normally, I might simply G2 the latter two, but "X1" is rather obscure, so we may want to merge them all to
Category:Test, although I don't have any particularly strong preference one way or another. Alternatively, do we even need to keep one of these? Is there anything one these categories existing will accomplish as a blue link vs. them simply being a redlink when people need to test?
VegaDark (
talk) 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see how you could not need more than one test category, since categorization of categories would selfevidently require more than one test category.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 04:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
You certainly wouldn't need 3, and the parent category could be a redlink and would still show any subcategories, so at most 1 is needed.
VegaDark (
talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
How would you experiment with the tree function and that [+] sign thing then?
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That still requires atleast two categories, even if it's a redlinked top category.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, but we can freely delete all but one to still be able to accomplish that. I'm not saying people should be prevented from using them for testing (in this particular use as a parent category) after being deleted.
VegaDark (
talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Note that
Category:X2 also exists, though it's "hard" to find, since it's currently a hard (yuk yuk) redirect to
Category:X1. Once a user is through testing he should delete the category they created or place a G2 speedy tag on it, so I don't see a need to permanently keep any of these.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment creating categories is an impossibility for new users and IP editors, so deleting them means that a portion of the editorship will have to experiment with live categories instead.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That's a convincing argument to keep one. I'm even open to keeping two for the far-fetched testing scenario proposed below. But 4? The only argument made to keep all 4 is that it is interesting to see what other users test. I think we should do away with either Test and Test2, or X1 and X2. Absolutely no reason to keep 4 test categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree. I can understand the desire to keep 2, but I don't see a good reason to have 4.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. We need a small set a sandbox categories. Deleting them hides the tests that created them from those who were testing. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you give an example of what can be done with two test categories as opposed to one, let alone 3 or 4?
VegaDark (
talk) 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I can see what happens if test1 is inside test2, and test2 is inside test1. Does this break the server? What about a larger loop? Not very profound, I admit, but neither is the need to clean up a few test categories. Also, I'd like to see what tests others try. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 20:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Even that use (which is a huge stretch IMO) wouldn't require more than two categories, and we currently have 4. You can still see what tests others try in the one (or two if absolutely necessary); I don't really think "seeing what tests others try" is a very persuasive rationale to keep. What if there were 10 test categories? Where do we draw the line?
VegaDark (
talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I think "seeing what tests others try" is plenty persuasive is contrast to the cost. Three or four might be enough. I'd like to see how a hidden category works. To see what others are playing with implies that we don't want many. The sandbox categories could use better names. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Respectfully, Nominator's rationale is essentially that they're not useful, but that's subjective, as they may well be useful to some. They're also harmless. Disbanding them doesn't really achieve anything. •
Anakin(talk) 20:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That same argument could be made to keep 100 test categories, but I'm pretty sure we would agree keeping that many isn't necessary. We've already established that there is no possible use for more than 2 test categories other than to "see what tests others try", which is basically a non-reason as far as I am concerned. At what point to we determine we have too many test categories? I would argue the point where we have more than is required to test all possible things, which is 2. If we don't use this standard, there is nothing stopping us from keeping 5, 6, 7 or more test categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Come to think of it, since "test page" is a speedy delete criterion, why can't these just be speedily deleted? If users need to test again, they can be re-created.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:36, 12 November 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. In Barbados the word is spelled "labour". See, e.g.,
this government website. (And of course there is the
Barbados Labour Party.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. BTW, less of a biggie, but the category
Category:Labor relations in France should probably be changed too, since we tend to use UK spelling for European mainland categories. There are also a couplke in the subcategory "Labor disputes by country" which need looking at - notably the Pakistan one, but also some European ones.
Grutness...wha? 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support, should be a speedy. --
Soman (
talk) 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:58, 9 November 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:Labor relations 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The word is spelled "labour" in South African English. See, e.g.,
this government website.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support, should be a speedy. --
Soman (
talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:57, 9 November 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:Moroccan millionaires
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. --Xdamrtalk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete.
Category:Millionaires was deleted as too common and not meaningful, I don't see this as being different.
Tassedethe (
talk) 09:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Being a mere millionaire (and in what currency is this measured?) is not a defining characteristic at this point in time.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete A million is arbitrary, and even if the currency were fixed at pounds, euros, etc. fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and ordinary market cycles render wealth-based categorization largely meaningless.-
choster 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, although the hypothetical category '
Zimbabwean billionaries' could have been an interesting one to populate :), --
Soman (
talk) 22:26, 8 November 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 by former use
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 rename per nom.
Cjc13 (
talk) 20:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:56, 9 November 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:Next albums
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 nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:55, 9 November 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 in Greater St. Louis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. I would consider a reverse merge, because the article is just
Greater St. Louis.
Debresser (
talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support the reverse merge. Not all in St. Louis, Missouri are or would be in Greater St. Louis
Mayumashu (
talk) 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)reply
How come? Usually that whould be the case.
Debresser (
talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Both are valid groupings and the area is a logical parent for the city related material.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:21, 5 November 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:Adult contemporary albums
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. --Xdamrtalk 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I am not necessarily proposing deletion if the child categories placed in this can be better defined. Half the artists' categories I would not consider adult contemporary, even though individual songs by these artists have been adult contemporary hits. But I find it hard to call their albums "adult contemporary", which is what being placed in this category suggests. Also, the genre (and I'm not sure it really can be called a genre, rather a radio format) changes over time more than most. What wouldn't be played 10 years ago on AC may be a staple today. The point is AC seems to be more song based and cannot be defined to any particular album or artist for this to exist as is being utilized.
Wolfer68 (
talk) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Further comment: Note that there is no category for adult contemporary songs, although songs can be better defined as AC than albums. Also, in the U.S., Billboard magazine has only an AC songs chart, not an AC albums chart. --
Wolfer68 (
talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)reply
delete. I essentially agree with what Wolfer68 has written about this not being an album genre as such, or even a very viable one for songs since "contemporary" is constantly changing. I remember that on a self-proclaimed "adult contemporary" radio station I once heard a Gun N' Roses ballad, so ...
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, but work to find a better characterisation than "contemporary". Wikipedia should seek to be timeless. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The term "adult contemporary" has been used in radio for over 30 years, so the term is appropriate, just not the category. I would just have to say it is a non-defining characteristic. Most albums will not strictly contain only AC songs and definitely not an artist's span of albums. --
Wolfer68 (
talk) 10:10, 7 November 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:CMX video albums
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 rename per Vegaswikian. We split all the video albums out from albums in a long process involving well over a thousand category changes, starting with
this successful nomination in July. No video albums should now be in album categories, as album categories are reserved for audio albums. Similarly, like with the album and song categories, all video albums should have artist video album categories. (No objection on adding the "band" parenthetical, though.)--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:37, 5 November 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:Maximals
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.
Don't change - This one seems pretty clear. I don't know of any article that needs a Maximal category that isn't Transformers related.
Mathewignash (
talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Support confusion with the magazine is readily possible.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 04:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak support. My first thought was a alternative of with
maxima. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:53, 9 November 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:Combiners
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. There is no article about
Combiner (Transformers), so I don't even know if this is an actual type of Transformer or just a fan neologism. At the very least it needs to be renamed
Category:Combiners (Transformers) since the current name is ambiguous and could be confused for one for electronic combiners (see
diplexer).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
RENAME - The proposed name Combiners (Transformers) clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you add any insight as to why there is no article about this and where the name "Combiners" comes from?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Probably hasn't been written yet. I could do one if it's requested. Combiners (sometimes called gestalts) are mentioned in supporting media for Transformers. In fact I believe Hasbro recently used Combiners in a press release about the last film they did.
Mathewignash (
talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
As long as it's a verifiable term I have no problem with it existing without a main article.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:53, 9 November 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:Convoys
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:52, 9 November 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:Headmasters
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:52, 9 November 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:Primes
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:52, 9 November 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:Seekers
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 - The proposed name clairifies the category.
Mathewignash (
talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 16:51, 9 November 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.
Test 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete Test 1/2, Keep X1/2 as an analog to
Template:X1 and
Template:x2. --Xdamrtalk 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge all or delete all - I don't think we need 3 4 different test categories. Normally, I might simply G2 the latter two, but "X1" is rather obscure, so we may want to merge them all to
Category:Test, although I don't have any particularly strong preference one way or another. Alternatively, do we even need to keep one of these? Is there anything one these categories existing will accomplish as a blue link vs. them simply being a redlink when people need to test?
VegaDark (
talk) 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see how you could not need more than one test category, since categorization of categories would selfevidently require more than one test category.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 04:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
You certainly wouldn't need 3, and the parent category could be a redlink and would still show any subcategories, so at most 1 is needed.
VegaDark (
talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
How would you experiment with the tree function and that [+] sign thing then?
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That still requires atleast two categories, even if it's a redlinked top category.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, but we can freely delete all but one to still be able to accomplish that. I'm not saying people should be prevented from using them for testing (in this particular use as a parent category) after being deleted.
VegaDark (
talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Note that
Category:X2 also exists, though it's "hard" to find, since it's currently a hard (yuk yuk) redirect to
Category:X1. Once a user is through testing he should delete the category they created or place a G2 speedy tag on it, so I don't see a need to permanently keep any of these.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment creating categories is an impossibility for new users and IP editors, so deleting them means that a portion of the editorship will have to experiment with live categories instead.
65.94.252.195 (
talk) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That's a convincing argument to keep one. I'm even open to keeping two for the far-fetched testing scenario proposed below. But 4? The only argument made to keep all 4 is that it is interesting to see what other users test. I think we should do away with either Test and Test2, or X1 and X2. Absolutely no reason to keep 4 test categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree. I can understand the desire to keep 2, but I don't see a good reason to have 4.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. We need a small set a sandbox categories. Deleting them hides the tests that created them from those who were testing. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you give an example of what can be done with two test categories as opposed to one, let alone 3 or 4?
VegaDark (
talk) 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I can see what happens if test1 is inside test2, and test2 is inside test1. Does this break the server? What about a larger loop? Not very profound, I admit, but neither is the need to clean up a few test categories. Also, I'd like to see what tests others try. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 20:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Even that use (which is a huge stretch IMO) wouldn't require more than two categories, and we currently have 4. You can still see what tests others try in the one (or two if absolutely necessary); I don't really think "seeing what tests others try" is a very persuasive rationale to keep. What if there were 10 test categories? Where do we draw the line?
VegaDark (
talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I think "seeing what tests others try" is plenty persuasive is contrast to the cost. Three or four might be enough. I'd like to see how a hidden category works. To see what others are playing with implies that we don't want many. The sandbox categories could use better names. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Respectfully, Nominator's rationale is essentially that they're not useful, but that's subjective, as they may well be useful to some. They're also harmless. Disbanding them doesn't really achieve anything. •
Anakin(talk) 20:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That same argument could be made to keep 100 test categories, but I'm pretty sure we would agree keeping that many isn't necessary. We've already established that there is no possible use for more than 2 test categories other than to "see what tests others try", which is basically a non-reason as far as I am concerned. At what point to we determine we have too many test categories? I would argue the point where we have more than is required to test all possible things, which is 2. If we don't use this standard, there is nothing stopping us from keeping 5, 6, 7 or more test categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Come to think of it, since "test page" is a speedy delete criterion, why can't these just be speedily deleted? If users need to test again, they can be re-created.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:36, 12 November 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.