Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22

Category:20th century refugees ennobled in the UK

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom. There's consensus to do something, but no consensus to listify or delete. The trend toward removing "20th century" suggests that should be done at minimum. No prejudice against relisting the new category if desired.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:20th century refugees ennobled in the UK ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unusual category and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It combines three things: refugee status, century, and eventual notable achievement of the person. It doesn't have any immediate logical parents, like Category:20th-century refugees or Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom. It could be misread as suggesting that they were ennobled when they were refugees, which of course is not true. On balance, given it's problems, I suggest deletion, unless someone has a better idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom, it would also have to be former refugees to work as well. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Listify - this is actually quite an interesting topic, but I don't think it's handled well as a category. A list page with some basic biographical info would be welcome. TheGrappler ( talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, probably removing the century limitation, or listify. Johnbod ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Listify then delete. It's a 4-way intersection, not appropriate for a category. The "20th century" can probably be omitted from the list too. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to removed 20thC. We have recently got rid of a lot of 20th/21st century categories by merger inot a parent and this should be no exception. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (no objection to listifying if a suitable location exists) - Even if we remove the century designation, we still are left with an ambiguous triple-intersection of refugee status, attainment of nobility, and country ( Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom). Are these people who were refugees to the United Kingdom or from the United Kingdom (the category description clarifies that it is the former, but the category title does not)? Did their status as a refugee have anything to do with their ennoblement? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:49, 5 June 2010 (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:Gordon J. Laing Award

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. — ξ xplicit 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Gordon J. Laing Award ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous award category being used to categorize winners, which are already listified at Gordon J. Laing Award. Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_recipients applies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (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:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete as a recreation of deleted content and as an empty category. Also for this nomination WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:POINTy category that was created to avoid the delete conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. The creation of this category in the middle of the discussion to delete the now-deleted Category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories was completely inappropriate. If a user anticipates that a category they would prefer to retain is about to be deleted, they should not be able to avoid this result by making a new category that is worded slightly differently but essentially accomplishes the same purpose that the original category was meant to accomplish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP I not create category, it already exist. But it important category that need to differentiate between company base in Israel and in area that current occupy by Israel military. Ani medjool ( talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. Aggressive bad faith behaviour by editor. -- Shuki ( talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. This couldn't be deleted faster. It was created in absolute bad faith, in the middle of the deletion process of the same category with two words rearranged. Editors need to be shown that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. The existence of this category is only causing added drama and edit wars. Breein1007 ( talk) 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is an obvious attempt at POV-pushing by pro- Palestinians who consider their territory "occupied" and who will probably use this list for another boycott of Israeli goods. Yoninah ( talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Malik Shabazz claim that it was created to avoid the delete conclusion of another category is inaccurate. This category was created specially for the Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories, products Israel creates in its settlements which is a subject that is discussed in many different places, so it has notability. If the reader sees that the category is empty now is because several pro-Israeli editors have removed the category from all Israeli articles operating in the occupied territories. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Yoninah. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. Purely evasive behavior by editor characterized by a chronic battleground attitude. Delete, then block or ban the disruptive party. Hertz1888 ( talk) 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the cat page takes you to Israeli-Occupied Territories, and therefore that is what the cat should be, but alas, that was voted in the CFD as delete so this is just a way to work around that. Yossiea (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2010 (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:Joseph Campbell

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Joseph Campbell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category full of articles related to Joseph Campbell, many of them biographies of other people e.g. Jackie Onassis. Since those articles may be safely accessed by wikilink if they are relevant, and there is a navbox for Joseph campbell already, I don't see this category as necessary. TheGrappler ( talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (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:Cornish immigrants to the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ xplicit 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Cornish immigrants to the United States to Category:English immigrants to the United States
Nominator's rationale: too narrow a distinction to make and without precedent (no Category:Cornish emigrants, Category:Cornish expatriates etc.) Mayumashu ( talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename; at this stage, I see no reason to single Cornish emigrants out from English ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (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:Privately owned Government companies in India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under G3 - Vandalism. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Privately owned Government companies in India to Category:Government-owned companies in India
Nominator's rationale: The title of this category is oxymoronic: if a company is privately-owned, it's not a govt company. However the category does appear to be for state-owned enterprises, so I suggest merging to the existing Category:Government-owned companies in India. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. Besides the oxymoronic title ... though governments work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform :-) this is especially clear from the last sentence of the description, "These companies are run by the Directors of the company and he/she is assisted by the workers of his/her caste." (emphasis added). The creator Bob hoekstra ( talk · contribs) has made other disparaging edits about Bharat Dynamics Limited [1], and if I had to guess it is just a frustrated (potential?) employee using wikipedia as a soapbox. Abecedare ( talk) 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vandalism. The category note is testament to the nonsense that this category is. There are autonomous entities among the public sector undertakings, but that doesn't appear to be what this category is about anyway and if required it's better to start a clean category for that. — Spaceman Spiff 04:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a hoax. Complete nonsense, the companies in the category are government-controlled and there aren't any privately-owned government companies in India. Moreover, the category note is unsourced OR. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Nyeri, Kenya

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from Nyeri District. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:People from Nyeri, Kenya to Category:People from Nyeri District
Nominator's rationale: Nyeri is but a town while the district in which it is located ( Nyeri District) does not have a 'People from' category page. (Note: Nyeri, Kenya redirects to Nyeri) Mayumashu ( talk) 18:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Central Province

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from Central Province (Kenya). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:People from Central Province to Category:People from Central Province (Kenya)
Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate as there are several places Central Province and to match Central Province (Kenya) Mayumashu ( talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Straightforward—this clearly needs disambiguation. There are many Central Provinces. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (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:Highly Hazardous Chemicals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify. There seems to be enough interest in keeping the material, but the specificity to one U.S. agency doesn't garner consensus for keeping it.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Highly Hazardous Chemicals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A specific list of chemicals from a specific regulatory body does not a category make. An article, maybe. (but even then the capitalisation is not warranted per http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9761&p_table=standards) . Rich  Farmbrough, 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC). 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as too subjective. - Gilliam ( talk) 06:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Keeping the category for the chemicals designated as HHCs can be useful, IMHO. - The Bushranger ( talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is article or list material, not defining categorization material. There are other organizations which no doubt have their own lists of the ones that are highly hazardous, and if we proliferate them that's a recipe for category clutter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I have notified the creator. [2] -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I almost said "keep", this is a good category, but then found that the parent article is, and only ever has been, a redirect, and that the category is woefully underpopulated. (Or are there really only 34 "Highly Hazardous Chemicals"?) I think this category *is* a good idea, and am happy to single out the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the defining body for "Highly hazardous chemicals", subject to change upon a good argument. However, the parent article needs to be flesh out first, and then the category needs to be completed, otherwise this category should be deleted due to being misleading. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    There's a few more than 34. I could help to populate the category though, if it's going to be kept. - The Bushranger ( talk) 13:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    I think a good parent article is needed. Is there a difference between "highly hazardous" and "toxic and highly hazardous". Does "highly hazardous" exclude things like "Super highly hazardous"? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I can't think what a parent article would say other than what is on the existing category page. Assuming that the American taste for hazards is unlikely to be much different from classification in other countries, I'm inclined to weak keep and populate. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found this article useful in spite of it not being comprehensive. Bryce ( talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Article-ify to Highly Hazardous Chemical, which is currently a redirect. A useful, notable subject, but not yet good as a category. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is not a subjective (i.e. POV) category, because the contents are limited to those designated by a US public body. However, I am not familiar with this American system, being British and not involved in chemistry since leaving university nearly 40 years ago. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    No one here has suggested it is POV. The rationale is that undue weight is being given to one organization's classification scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Listify. The list is available on the US website. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Listify to Highly Hazardous Chemical per Good Ol'factory: "undue weight is being given to one organization's [OSHA's] classification scheme". There is no doubt that a listing of HHCs can be useful, but categorization must consider not only the potential utility of the grouping but also the definingness of the characteristic for the articles which the category contains. If this was an internationally-accepted and definitive listing on the level of the IUCN Red List, then I would support its existence; as it stands, however, this is a list published by a single nation's health and safety agency. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (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:Television shows with named seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Television shows with named seasons to Category:Television series with named seasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a very odd category, uniting such disparate programs as Avatar: The Last Airbender, Ugly Betty, and Real World/Road Rules Challenge under a perhaps specious banner. The reason I brought it here, though, is that like all subcategories of Category:Television series, it should use "series" rather than "shows." I'm not opposed to a delete result either.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename if kept but it seems to be a variant on 'Categorisation by shared name', which would require delete. (Inclusion criteria would be nice.) Occuli ( talk) 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not useful to the way we categorise stuff now. Rich  Farmbrough, 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. Seems to be overcategorization by shared naming feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per olfactory. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Really borderline keep/delete, but any possible names don't seem to work which tips it over the edge. (in the US we have "seasons" of a show, but the UK term for a single year's worth of programmes is a "series" (i.e. Doctor Who series 3)...) - The Bushranger ( talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (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:RationalWikians

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:RationalWikians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on RationalWiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark ( talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to the Club Penguin Wikis

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Club Penguin Wiki ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark ( talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Yoninah ( talk) 11:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Queries
    1. "Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories..." even assuming it set a precedent, which leaving it be, or listing and keeping do not, per POKEMON, OTHERSTUFFEXSITS etc, what is the harm of a few thousand user categories?
    2. "No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration" - on the contrary the cat does not suggest that these Wikipedians are experts on the subject of the Club Penguin Wiki (although they may be) but on the (vastly more important - and once AfD'd) Club Penguin.
Rich  Farmbrough, 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC). reply
1) Per WP:USERCAT, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. A few thousand user categories that don't do this (or even one) dilutes the goal of user categories and therefore causes harm by merely existing. 2) In that case a more appropriate category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in Club Penguin. Such a category runs the risk of being too narrow to adequately foster collaboration, however. Usually user categories should encompass at least 4-5 potential articles to collaborate on, otherwise talk pages are more appropriate. VegaDark ( talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no need to categorize by what doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Gamma

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Gamma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on the Memory Gamma, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark ( talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Kohanim descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:People of Kohanim descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unnecessary category which overlaps Category:Kohanim. For people who are not Kohanim in the eyes of halakha (Jewish law) — such as a man whose maternal grandfather was a Kohen — the classification of "Kohanim descent" has no halachic value and is at most a coffee-table tidbit. A woman whose father is a Kohen (called a bat Kohen in Jewish law) might be included in Category:Kohanim, although this would probably be important only to Conservative Jewish women, who might want their own category, Category:Women kohanim. Yoninah ( talk) 08:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete First of all, I completely agree with the nominator. Another strong argument to delete this category is that the specific ancestry of being descended from a kohen but not being a kohen yourself is never considered, mentioned, valued etc. It is not notable, so to say. Debresser ( talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: I am looking through all the names in this category and adding the categorization of Category:Kohanim where applicable, so that they will be categorized as kohanim somewhere. I'm finding that quite a few people, men and women, who have "Cohen" as a surname have been placed in Category:People of Kohanim descent, which is not necessarily correct, since Jewish families often changed their names to Cohen to avoid the draft (as in 19th century Russia). Yoninah ( talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. A Bas Kohen does have some halachic issues that apply regarding terumah, etc. but that is b/c as long as she does not marry a non-Kohen, she is a Koheness and such may eat terumos etc. -- Avi ( talk) 14:28, 23 April 2010 (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:Converts to Orthodox independent denominations from Eastern Orthodoxy

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 both. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Converts to Orthodox independent denominations from Eastern Orthodoxy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Converts to Old Believers from Eastern Orthodoxy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These two categories are kind of meaningless. The people in the categories left or were excommunicated from one Eastern Orthodox church and joined a different Eastern Orthodox Church. The Old Believers are a movement within Eastern Orthodoxy. None of these people converted from Eastern Orthodoxy at all, they just became associated with different churches in the overall movement. It would kind of be like saying, "Converts to Sufism from Islam" or "Converts to Methodism from Protestantism". Doesn't make sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support. The founding fathers of the movement should not be categorized under "converts" in first place. One note: the continuum of Old Believers, taken broadly, is not all Eastern Orthodox. There are plenty of cults (mostly extinct now) that are clearly non-Christian. NVO ( talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Whoo, let's not get into the who is and who isn't "Christian". Wars are fought over things like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Good Ol’factory Ani medjool ( talk) 23:34, 26 April 2010 (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:Self-released 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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Self-released albums to Category:Independent albums
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that these albums were released independent of externally owned or operated record labels. Note that the main article is independent music. Alternatively, it can be renamed Category:Independently-released albums. — ξ xplicit 04:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Self-released albums would be independently-released, but if anything, they should be a subcatregory. Simply put, releasing an album yourself and releasing it on SST are two different things, even if both of those mean that you are avoiding the Big Four. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The present title appears to be clear and precise. Possibly "self-published" might be even clearer, but I do not think that term is used for records. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (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:Works by Aoi Nishimata

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Works by Aoi Nishimata ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are listed in her biography, this category is completely unnecessary. Even if all of the works she has been involved with are included, it would only be 7 articles. — Farix ( t |  c) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. There is no reason for this categorization when all the works are neatly listed in the main article. Yoninah ( talk) 11:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:IINFO and Yoninah Ani medjool ( talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm not sure IINFO applies here. This category is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. When we routinely say it's OK for now defunct bands that have only ever produced one album and will never again produce another album to have a category dedicated to their albums, it seems strange that the same rationale would not apply to categories for other works. Here, we have three works in the category, and if there were 7, that would seem to be quite a robust category for a creator's works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (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:Whitegoods manufacturers of China

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Home appliance manufacturers of China. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Whitegoods manufacturers of China to Category:Home appliance manufacturers of China
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Whitegoods refers to major appliances, which is a subtype of what WP calls home appliances. As the article home appliance says, "Traditionally, home appliances are classified into: Major appliances (or "White goods") [and] Small appliances (or "Brown goods")." This category belongs in the parent Category:Home appliance manufacturers, and should be renamed accordingly. Right now there is no subgroup of Category:Major appliance manufacturers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and per Wikipedia is not guess, guess, guess. Most people would look up "home appliances", not "white goods". Yoninah ( talk) 11:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, but not per GGG - a. categories are not primarily meant to be looked up, and b. many people would use "white goods" as a known term rather than "home appliances" "household appliances" "domestic appliances" etc. Nonetheless rename, since most manufacturers make both or neither. Rich  Farmbrough, 17:51, 22 April 2010 (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:Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Volcanoes by highest known Volcanic Explosivity Index of eruption. Consensus does not exist to do anything in this nomination. However, all participants agree that the category title, and thus all the subcategory titles, contain a factual inaccuracy. So while the utility of the category has not been agreed to be low, the category title must change to be one that isn't wrong. I picked the best name I could find from the nomination, but certainly don't think it's great. Further nominations are recommended, and they should include the subcategories. Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. VEI is not a characteristic of volcanoes but of eruptions. A volcano cannot have a VEI. Thus, this category and its subcategories are meaningless. 94.196.237.72 ( talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge work done to Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#List_of_eruptions and delete when done. Indexing by this measure is not a good use of the category system, especially not when the index list is so incomplete. Categorisation is not flexible enough for this developing idea (in terms of wikipedia content). Very likely, Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#List_of_eruptions will need breaking into multiple pages when it fills out, and maybe then some useful categorisation need will become apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe ( talk • contribs)
    • The list in the VEI article is already too large to be very useful as a list of examples, and I agree with the comments at Talk:Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#examples about the futility of trying to create a comprehensive list of eruptions on Wikipedia. It is also often not clear what eruption led to a volcano being put into these categories (see Glacier Peak or Stromboli, to take a couple of randomly chosen examples). So I don't thinking merging this information into that list would be easy or useful. I would have more sympathy for a separate List of volcanoes by size of largest eruption, which seems to be what the categories were trying to record. -- Avenue ( talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to 'eruptions' doesn't work as they are all volcanoes, not eruptions. And none of the subcats are tagged. Occuli ( talk) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Then perhaps they should be renamed as well. Very small scale VEI eruptions, such as VEI-1 and 2, are common at volcanoes and those volcano cats ( Category:VEI-1 volcanoes and Category:VEI-2 volcanoes) can easily be over populated. Thus, overcategorizing would be become a problem. It is better off renaming all VEI volcano categories to VEI volcanic eruption categories because that would prevent volcano articles becoming overpopulated with VEI categories. There is currently one VEI-2 eruption article ( 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens), one VEI-4 eruption article ( 1888 eruption of Mount Bandai, two VEI-5 eruption articles ( Hekla 3 eruption, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens), two VE1-6 eruption articles ( 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, Avellino eruption), three VEI-7 eruption articles ( Hatepe eruption, Akahoya eruption, Minoan eruption (which was either VEI-6 or 7)) and one VEI-8 eruption article ( Oruanui eruption) and others in Category:Volcanic events I did not noted. BT ( talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Volcanoes with VEI-X eruptions could solve the problem for the VEI-X volcano categories. BT ( talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Volcanoes with VEI-X eruptions seems problematic to me, since almost all volcanoes will have produced a small eruption at some point. We'd have to rely on editors being sensible and only applying categories that are a defining characteristic of the volcano, but I suspect this may not work out well. If people are keen on renaming the existing categories, I think Category:Volcanoes whose most explosive eruption was VEI-X comes close to matching what they currently contain. -- Avenue ( talk) 14:08, 22 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22&oldid=1078926627"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22

Category:20th century refugees ennobled in the UK

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom. There's consensus to do something, but no consensus to listify or delete. The trend toward removing "20th century" suggests that should be done at minimum. No prejudice against relisting the new category if desired.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:20th century refugees ennobled in the UK ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unusual category and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It combines three things: refugee status, century, and eventual notable achievement of the person. It doesn't have any immediate logical parents, like Category:20th-century refugees or Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom. It could be misread as suggesting that they were ennobled when they were refugees, which of course is not true. On balance, given it's problems, I suggest deletion, unless someone has a better idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom, it would also have to be former refugees to work as well. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Listify - this is actually quite an interesting topic, but I don't think it's handled well as a category. A list page with some basic biographical info would be welcome. TheGrappler ( talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, probably removing the century limitation, or listify. Johnbod ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Listify then delete. It's a 4-way intersection, not appropriate for a category. The "20th century" can probably be omitted from the list too. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to removed 20thC. We have recently got rid of a lot of 20th/21st century categories by merger inot a parent and this should be no exception. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (no objection to listifying if a suitable location exists) - Even if we remove the century designation, we still are left with an ambiguous triple-intersection of refugee status, attainment of nobility, and country ( Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom). Are these people who were refugees to the United Kingdom or from the United Kingdom (the category description clarifies that it is the former, but the category title does not)? Did their status as a refugee have anything to do with their ennoblement? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:49, 5 June 2010 (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:Gordon J. Laing Award

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. — ξ xplicit 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Gordon J. Laing Award ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous award category being used to categorize winners, which are already listified at Gordon J. Laing Award. Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_recipients applies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (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:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete as a recreation of deleted content and as an empty category. Also for this nomination WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:POINTy category that was created to avoid the delete conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. The creation of this category in the middle of the discussion to delete the now-deleted Category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories was completely inappropriate. If a user anticipates that a category they would prefer to retain is about to be deleted, they should not be able to avoid this result by making a new category that is worded slightly differently but essentially accomplishes the same purpose that the original category was meant to accomplish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP I not create category, it already exist. But it important category that need to differentiate between company base in Israel and in area that current occupy by Israel military. Ani medjool ( talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. Aggressive bad faith behaviour by editor. -- Shuki ( talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. This couldn't be deleted faster. It was created in absolute bad faith, in the middle of the deletion process of the same category with two words rearranged. Editors need to be shown that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. The existence of this category is only causing added drama and edit wars. Breein1007 ( talk) 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is an obvious attempt at POV-pushing by pro- Palestinians who consider their territory "occupied" and who will probably use this list for another boycott of Israeli goods. Yoninah ( talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Malik Shabazz claim that it was created to avoid the delete conclusion of another category is inaccurate. This category was created specially for the Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories, products Israel creates in its settlements which is a subject that is discussed in many different places, so it has notability. If the reader sees that the category is empty now is because several pro-Israeli editors have removed the category from all Israeli articles operating in the occupied territories. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Yoninah. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. Purely evasive behavior by editor characterized by a chronic battleground attitude. Delete, then block or ban the disruptive party. Hertz1888 ( talk) 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the cat page takes you to Israeli-Occupied Territories, and therefore that is what the cat should be, but alas, that was voted in the CFD as delete so this is just a way to work around that. Yossiea (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2010 (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:Joseph Campbell

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Joseph Campbell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category full of articles related to Joseph Campbell, many of them biographies of other people e.g. Jackie Onassis. Since those articles may be safely accessed by wikilink if they are relevant, and there is a navbox for Joseph campbell already, I don't see this category as necessary. TheGrappler ( talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (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:Cornish immigrants to the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ xplicit 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Cornish immigrants to the United States to Category:English immigrants to the United States
Nominator's rationale: too narrow a distinction to make and without precedent (no Category:Cornish emigrants, Category:Cornish expatriates etc.) Mayumashu ( talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename; at this stage, I see no reason to single Cornish emigrants out from English ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (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:Privately owned Government companies in India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under G3 - Vandalism. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Privately owned Government companies in India to Category:Government-owned companies in India
Nominator's rationale: The title of this category is oxymoronic: if a company is privately-owned, it's not a govt company. However the category does appear to be for state-owned enterprises, so I suggest merging to the existing Category:Government-owned companies in India. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. Besides the oxymoronic title ... though governments work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform :-) this is especially clear from the last sentence of the description, "These companies are run by the Directors of the company and he/she is assisted by the workers of his/her caste." (emphasis added). The creator Bob hoekstra ( talk · contribs) has made other disparaging edits about Bharat Dynamics Limited [1], and if I had to guess it is just a frustrated (potential?) employee using wikipedia as a soapbox. Abecedare ( talk) 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as vandalism. The category note is testament to the nonsense that this category is. There are autonomous entities among the public sector undertakings, but that doesn't appear to be what this category is about anyway and if required it's better to start a clean category for that. — Spaceman Spiff 04:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a hoax. Complete nonsense, the companies in the category are government-controlled and there aren't any privately-owned government companies in India. Moreover, the category note is unsourced OR. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Nyeri, Kenya

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from Nyeri District. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:People from Nyeri, Kenya to Category:People from Nyeri District
Nominator's rationale: Nyeri is but a town while the district in which it is located ( Nyeri District) does not have a 'People from' category page. (Note: Nyeri, Kenya redirects to Nyeri) Mayumashu ( talk) 18:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Central Province

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from Central Province (Kenya). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:People from Central Province to Category:People from Central Province (Kenya)
Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate as there are several places Central Province and to match Central Province (Kenya) Mayumashu ( talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Straightforward—this clearly needs disambiguation. There are many Central Provinces. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (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:Highly Hazardous Chemicals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify. There seems to be enough interest in keeping the material, but the specificity to one U.S. agency doesn't garner consensus for keeping it.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Highly Hazardous Chemicals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A specific list of chemicals from a specific regulatory body does not a category make. An article, maybe. (but even then the capitalisation is not warranted per http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9761&p_table=standards) . Rich  Farmbrough, 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC). 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as too subjective. - Gilliam ( talk) 06:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Keeping the category for the chemicals designated as HHCs can be useful, IMHO. - The Bushranger ( talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is article or list material, not defining categorization material. There are other organizations which no doubt have their own lists of the ones that are highly hazardous, and if we proliferate them that's a recipe for category clutter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I have notified the creator. [2] -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I almost said "keep", this is a good category, but then found that the parent article is, and only ever has been, a redirect, and that the category is woefully underpopulated. (Or are there really only 34 "Highly Hazardous Chemicals"?) I think this category *is* a good idea, and am happy to single out the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the defining body for "Highly hazardous chemicals", subject to change upon a good argument. However, the parent article needs to be flesh out first, and then the category needs to be completed, otherwise this category should be deleted due to being misleading. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    There's a few more than 34. I could help to populate the category though, if it's going to be kept. - The Bushranger ( talk) 13:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    I think a good parent article is needed. Is there a difference between "highly hazardous" and "toxic and highly hazardous". Does "highly hazardous" exclude things like "Super highly hazardous"? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I can't think what a parent article would say other than what is on the existing category page. Assuming that the American taste for hazards is unlikely to be much different from classification in other countries, I'm inclined to weak keep and populate. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found this article useful in spite of it not being comprehensive. Bryce ( talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Article-ify to Highly Hazardous Chemical, which is currently a redirect. A useful, notable subject, but not yet good as a category. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is not a subjective (i.e. POV) category, because the contents are limited to those designated by a US public body. However, I am not familiar with this American system, being British and not involved in chemistry since leaving university nearly 40 years ago. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    No one here has suggested it is POV. The rationale is that undue weight is being given to one organization's classification scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Listify. The list is available on the US website. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Listify to Highly Hazardous Chemical per Good Ol'factory: "undue weight is being given to one organization's [OSHA's] classification scheme". There is no doubt that a listing of HHCs can be useful, but categorization must consider not only the potential utility of the grouping but also the definingness of the characteristic for the articles which the category contains. If this was an internationally-accepted and definitive listing on the level of the IUCN Red List, then I would support its existence; as it stands, however, this is a list published by a single nation's health and safety agency. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (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:Television shows with named seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Television shows with named seasons to Category:Television series with named seasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a very odd category, uniting such disparate programs as Avatar: The Last Airbender, Ugly Betty, and Real World/Road Rules Challenge under a perhaps specious banner. The reason I brought it here, though, is that like all subcategories of Category:Television series, it should use "series" rather than "shows." I'm not opposed to a delete result either.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename if kept but it seems to be a variant on 'Categorisation by shared name', which would require delete. (Inclusion criteria would be nice.) Occuli ( talk) 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not useful to the way we categorise stuff now. Rich  Farmbrough, 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. Seems to be overcategorization by shared naming feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per olfactory. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Really borderline keep/delete, but any possible names don't seem to work which tips it over the edge. (in the US we have "seasons" of a show, but the UK term for a single year's worth of programmes is a "series" (i.e. Doctor Who series 3)...) - The Bushranger ( talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (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:RationalWikians

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:RationalWikians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on RationalWiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark ( talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to the Club Penguin Wikis

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Club Penguin Wiki ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark ( talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Yoninah ( talk) 11:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Queries
    1. "Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories..." even assuming it set a precedent, which leaving it be, or listing and keeping do not, per POKEMON, OTHERSTUFFEXSITS etc, what is the harm of a few thousand user categories?
    2. "No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration" - on the contrary the cat does not suggest that these Wikipedians are experts on the subject of the Club Penguin Wiki (although they may be) but on the (vastly more important - and once AfD'd) Club Penguin.
Rich  Farmbrough, 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC). reply
1) Per WP:USERCAT, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. A few thousand user categories that don't do this (or even one) dilutes the goal of user categories and therefore causes harm by merely existing. 2) In that case a more appropriate category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in Club Penguin. Such a category runs the risk of being too narrow to adequately foster collaboration, however. Usually user categories should encompass at least 4-5 potential articles to collaborate on, otherwise talk pages are more appropriate. VegaDark ( talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no need to categorize by what doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Gamma

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Gamma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on the Memory Gamma, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark ( talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Kohanim descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:People of Kohanim descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unnecessary category which overlaps Category:Kohanim. For people who are not Kohanim in the eyes of halakha (Jewish law) — such as a man whose maternal grandfather was a Kohen — the classification of "Kohanim descent" has no halachic value and is at most a coffee-table tidbit. A woman whose father is a Kohen (called a bat Kohen in Jewish law) might be included in Category:Kohanim, although this would probably be important only to Conservative Jewish women, who might want their own category, Category:Women kohanim. Yoninah ( talk) 08:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete First of all, I completely agree with the nominator. Another strong argument to delete this category is that the specific ancestry of being descended from a kohen but not being a kohen yourself is never considered, mentioned, valued etc. It is not notable, so to say. Debresser ( talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: I am looking through all the names in this category and adding the categorization of Category:Kohanim where applicable, so that they will be categorized as kohanim somewhere. I'm finding that quite a few people, men and women, who have "Cohen" as a surname have been placed in Category:People of Kohanim descent, which is not necessarily correct, since Jewish families often changed their names to Cohen to avoid the draft (as in 19th century Russia). Yoninah ( talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. A Bas Kohen does have some halachic issues that apply regarding terumah, etc. but that is b/c as long as she does not marry a non-Kohen, she is a Koheness and such may eat terumos etc. -- Avi ( talk) 14:28, 23 April 2010 (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:Converts to Orthodox independent denominations from Eastern Orthodoxy

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 both. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Converts to Orthodox independent denominations from Eastern Orthodoxy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Converts to Old Believers from Eastern Orthodoxy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These two categories are kind of meaningless. The people in the categories left or were excommunicated from one Eastern Orthodox church and joined a different Eastern Orthodox Church. The Old Believers are a movement within Eastern Orthodoxy. None of these people converted from Eastern Orthodoxy at all, they just became associated with different churches in the overall movement. It would kind of be like saying, "Converts to Sufism from Islam" or "Converts to Methodism from Protestantism". Doesn't make sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support. The founding fathers of the movement should not be categorized under "converts" in first place. One note: the continuum of Old Believers, taken broadly, is not all Eastern Orthodox. There are plenty of cults (mostly extinct now) that are clearly non-Christian. NVO ( talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Whoo, let's not get into the who is and who isn't "Christian". Wars are fought over things like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Good Ol’factory Ani medjool ( talk) 23:34, 26 April 2010 (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:Self-released 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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Self-released albums to Category:Independent albums
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that these albums were released independent of externally owned or operated record labels. Note that the main article is independent music. Alternatively, it can be renamed Category:Independently-released albums. — ξ xplicit 04:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Self-released albums would be independently-released, but if anything, they should be a subcatregory. Simply put, releasing an album yourself and releasing it on SST are two different things, even if both of those mean that you are avoiding the Big Four. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The present title appears to be clear and precise. Possibly "self-published" might be even clearer, but I do not think that term is used for records. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (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:Works by Aoi Nishimata

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Works by Aoi Nishimata ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are listed in her biography, this category is completely unnecessary. Even if all of the works she has been involved with are included, it would only be 7 articles. — Farix ( t |  c) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. There is no reason for this categorization when all the works are neatly listed in the main article. Yoninah ( talk) 11:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:IINFO and Yoninah Ani medjool ( talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm not sure IINFO applies here. This category is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. When we routinely say it's OK for now defunct bands that have only ever produced one album and will never again produce another album to have a category dedicated to their albums, it seems strange that the same rationale would not apply to categories for other works. Here, we have three works in the category, and if there were 7, that would seem to be quite a robust category for a creator's works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (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:Whitegoods manufacturers of China

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Home appliance manufacturers of China. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Whitegoods manufacturers of China to Category:Home appliance manufacturers of China
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Whitegoods refers to major appliances, which is a subtype of what WP calls home appliances. As the article home appliance says, "Traditionally, home appliances are classified into: Major appliances (or "White goods") [and] Small appliances (or "Brown goods")." This category belongs in the parent Category:Home appliance manufacturers, and should be renamed accordingly. Right now there is no subgroup of Category:Major appliance manufacturers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and per Wikipedia is not guess, guess, guess. Most people would look up "home appliances", not "white goods". Yoninah ( talk) 11:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, but not per GGG - a. categories are not primarily meant to be looked up, and b. many people would use "white goods" as a known term rather than "home appliances" "household appliances" "domestic appliances" etc. Nonetheless rename, since most manufacturers make both or neither. Rich  Farmbrough, 17:51, 22 April 2010 (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:Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Volcanoes by highest known Volcanic Explosivity Index of eruption. Consensus does not exist to do anything in this nomination. However, all participants agree that the category title, and thus all the subcategory titles, contain a factual inaccuracy. So while the utility of the category has not been agreed to be low, the category title must change to be one that isn't wrong. I picked the best name I could find from the nomination, but certainly don't think it's great. Further nominations are recommended, and they should include the subcategories. Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. VEI is not a characteristic of volcanoes but of eruptions. A volcano cannot have a VEI. Thus, this category and its subcategories are meaningless. 94.196.237.72 ( talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge work done to Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#List_of_eruptions and delete when done. Indexing by this measure is not a good use of the category system, especially not when the index list is so incomplete. Categorisation is not flexible enough for this developing idea (in terms of wikipedia content). Very likely, Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#List_of_eruptions will need breaking into multiple pages when it fills out, and maybe then some useful categorisation need will become apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe ( talk • contribs)
    • The list in the VEI article is already too large to be very useful as a list of examples, and I agree with the comments at Talk:Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#examples about the futility of trying to create a comprehensive list of eruptions on Wikipedia. It is also often not clear what eruption led to a volcano being put into these categories (see Glacier Peak or Stromboli, to take a couple of randomly chosen examples). So I don't thinking merging this information into that list would be easy or useful. I would have more sympathy for a separate List of volcanoes by size of largest eruption, which seems to be what the categories were trying to record. -- Avenue ( talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to 'eruptions' doesn't work as they are all volcanoes, not eruptions. And none of the subcats are tagged. Occuli ( talk) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Then perhaps they should be renamed as well. Very small scale VEI eruptions, such as VEI-1 and 2, are common at volcanoes and those volcano cats ( Category:VEI-1 volcanoes and Category:VEI-2 volcanoes) can easily be over populated. Thus, overcategorizing would be become a problem. It is better off renaming all VEI volcano categories to VEI volcanic eruption categories because that would prevent volcano articles becoming overpopulated with VEI categories. There is currently one VEI-2 eruption article ( 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens), one VEI-4 eruption article ( 1888 eruption of Mount Bandai, two VEI-5 eruption articles ( Hekla 3 eruption, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens), two VE1-6 eruption articles ( 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, Avellino eruption), three VEI-7 eruption articles ( Hatepe eruption, Akahoya eruption, Minoan eruption (which was either VEI-6 or 7)) and one VEI-8 eruption article ( Oruanui eruption) and others in Category:Volcanic events I did not noted. BT ( talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Volcanoes with VEI-X eruptions could solve the problem for the VEI-X volcano categories. BT ( talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Volcanoes with VEI-X eruptions seems problematic to me, since almost all volcanoes will have produced a small eruption at some point. We'd have to rely on editors being sensible and only applying categories that are a defining characteristic of the volcano, but I suspect this may not work out well. If people are keen on renaming the existing categories, I think Category:Volcanoes whose most explosive eruption was VEI-X comes close to matching what they currently contain. -- Avenue ( talk) 14:08, 22 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22&oldid=1078926627"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE